Commons Sitting of 1 April 1897

TOWN HOLDINGS (TENANTS' COMPENSATION) BILL.
Second Reading deferred from Tomorrow till Friday, 9th April.
VERMINOUS PERSONS BILL.
Second Reading deferred from To-morrow till Friday, 9th April.

WORKING MEN'S DWELLINGS BILL.
SIR H. VINCENTsaid that, in consequence of a Bill having similar objects in view having been sent down to that House from the Lords, he begged to move that the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of the Working Men's Dwellings Bill should be read and discharged.
Order for Second Reading upon Wednesday, 21st April read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.

QUESTIONS.

  TELEGRAPH ADDRESSES (BARROW-IN-FURNESS).
  MR. C. W. CAYZER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware that Mr. Joseph Huartson and Mr. Walter Cooper, who have been for many years resident in Barrow-in-Furness, their residences being near the post office and the former being well-known as the secretary of the Agricultural Society, who are the only persons on the Burgess Roll holding their respective names, and who have for several years received telegrams

  259
  addressed "Joseph Huartson, Barrow-in-Furness," and "Walter Cooper, Barrow-in-Furness," have recently received notice from the Post Office that telegrams so addressed will not be delivered owing to insufficient address, the Post Office notice saying they cannot deliver the telegram owing to being insufficiently addressed with their names, designation, and correct address; will he explain why the Post Office are declining to deliver telegrams in which only the Christian name and surname of the addressee and the name of the town are given, with the object of securing payment of £1 1s. per annum for registering an address; and whether he will instruct the Post Office officials at Barrow-in-Furness to take the same steps to deliver telegrams as they do in the case of letters?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr R. W. BANBURY,): These gentlemen have for several years received telegrams addressed "Huartson, Barrow-in-Furness (not Joseph Huartson, Barrow-in-Furness), and "Walter Cooper, Barrow-in-Furness." This, however was done without the knowledge of the Department in London, and as soon as the attention of the London Office was drawn to it, directions were given to stop the practice. Mr. Huartson and Mr. Cooper accordingly received notice on the 1st October last, and were given until the 1st of January to effect registration. The Department takes some trouble to deliver telegrams the addresses of which appear to be defective by accident and not by design; but it would be contrary to the interests of the public that it should allow its officers' time to be spent in procuring the delivery of telegrams which are systematically sent with insufficient addresses. Mr. Joseph Huartson has a notification printed on his letter paper that his telegraphic address is "Huartson, Barrow-in-Furness," and Mr. Cooper has a notification that his telegraphic address is "Walter Cooper, Barrow." These eases, therefore, are not cases of addresses defective by any accident. These gentlemen seek to obtain for nothing the advantage of an abbreviated address, for which other people have to pay one guinea a year, and the Postmaster General does not think he would be acting fairly if he did not require them to pay the prescribed fee.

  POST OFFICE TELEPHONE EXCHANGE.
  MR. FAITH FULL BEGG (Glasgow, St. Rollox): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will state what increase or decrease (if any) has taken place in the number of Telephone Exchanges which the Post Office has in the United Kingdom; what increase or decrease (if any) has taken place in the total number of subscribers to such Exchanges; what are the new Exchanges (if any) which have been opened; and what are the Exchanges (if any) which have been abandoned since the period dealt with in the Return, No. 119, of the present Session, showing particulars regarding such Exchanges for the year 1894?
  MR. HANBURY: There has been an increase of one in the number of Post Office Telephone Exchanges in the United Kingdom, while the total number of subscribers to such Exchanges has decreased by 102. The new Exchange which has been opened is at Abergavenny. No Exchanges have been abandoned since the date of the Returns.

  NORTH MUNDHAM BOARD SCHOOLS (SUSSEX).
  MR. J. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the, Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that in the Board School of North Mundham, Sussex, the Church Catechism is regularly taught to children, and that Nye's "Popular History of the Church of England" is also given for home reading and for examination; and whether steps will be taken to compel the discontinuance of these practices?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): I am aware of the facts stated. The Committee of Council are in communication with the School Board as to the alleged teaching of the Church Catechism. Nye's History is not a religious catechism or religious formulary which is distinctive of any particular denomination, and seems to me to be written in a spirit of moderation and tolerance.

  ORMATHWAITE ESTATE (LISTOWEL).
  MR. M. J. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) if he can state on what grounds the application of an evicted tenant on the Ormathwaite property, named Thomas Walsh, for reinstatement, was refused; (2) whether the estate is under the direct control of the landlord, or have receivers been appointed over the property; and, if so, who are they; (3) whether he can state the annual cost to the ratepayers of the police barrack which is on the farm; and (4) whether, in view of the peaceable condition of the district, which is in the Listowel police division, steps will be taken to remove the extra police?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD LULFOUR,): I am unable to answer the first question. The estate is under the direct control of the landlord and a trustee. A protection post was established on the farm shortly after the murder, in 1888, of John Foran, who had taken the farm from which Walsh was evicted, and the post, is still necessary for the protection of the caretaker in charge of the farm. The annual cost to the ratepayers of the two constables employed at the post is about £69.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the other evicted tenants on this property have been reinstated, and will he say why an exception is made in this tenant's case?
  [No answer was given.]

  URBAN ROADS AND FOOTPATHS.
  MR. H. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will consider the advisability of enabling county councils to lake over the roads and footpaths of urban district councils in cases where both authorities are desirous this should be done; and whether he will bring in a Bill for that purpose?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): I do not myself contemplate bringing in a Bill for the purpose referred to, but there is a Bill now before the House dealing with a cognate matter, and when that Bill comes on for discussion, I shall be
  262
  very glad to consider this Question in connection with it.

  ATTORNEYS (RHODESIA).
  MR. T. C. H. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Scots law agents (i.e. duly qualified Scots solicitors) who do not happen to be also members of the small private Edinburgh body known as Writers to the Signet are admitted to practice in Rhodesia as attorneys without further examination on producing proof of their admission as solicitors in Scotland; and, if not, will he explain on what grounds?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I understand that the answer is in the affirmative. According to Sub-section (b)of Section 1 of the High Commissioner's Proclamation of 8th April 1892, "Solicitors or Attorneys-at Law, or Scottish Writers to the Signet, duly admitted and enrolled and under no disability to practice in England, Ireland, Scotland, or the Cape Colony, may be admitted and enrolled to practice as Attomeys-at-Law."

  GAS POISONING (ALLEGED).
  MR T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department is he aware that the large English Gas Companies are now making large quantities of water gas and turning it into the mains with coal gas, so that some cases of gas poisoning have already occurred; and, will any means be taken to protect the public against the admixture of this most poisonous substance with coal gas?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): No, Sir. I am not aware that cases of gas poisoning have occurred from the cause, suggested by the hon. and learned Member, but if he will be good enough to favour me with any instance I will cause inquiry to be made.

  QUEEN'S DIAMOND JUBILEE (INDIAN TROOPS'.
  MR. M. M. BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether

  263
  arrangements are completed for the presence, of Indian troops on the occasion of Her Majesty's Diamond Jubilee; and, if so, will he state how many officers and how many men are expected; whether he will ask the Government of India to arrange that of the officers as many as possible should be native officers; and, whether it is proposed to include in the contingent any representatives of the Volunteer regiments in India, as well as of the Parsees who are enrolled in some of those regiments?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): Twenty-one native officers of Indian cavalry and 20 representatives of the Imperial service troops are expected from India in order to take part in the celebration of the 60th year of Her Majesty's reign. I have received no proposals from India for the deputation of any Volunteers from that country.

  ANTI-PLAGUE INOCULATION (INDIA).
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the systems of anti-plague inoculation which are being tried in India by Dr. Haffkine and Dr. Yersin, and the statement contained in a recent official dispatch from Bombay that 3,296 persons have already been inoculated by Dr. Haffkine; and whether, with a view of securing a prompt test of the protective and curative value of the procedures referred to, he would take steps to secure an independent official registration of all anti-plague inoculations, so as to enable the practical efficacy of the systems to be tested by subsequent comparison between the disease and death rates among inoculated and non-inoculated persons?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I have been in frequent telegraphic correspondence with the Bombay Government regarding inoculations against plague. I have requested the Bombay Government to report periodically the number and the results of inoculations under Dr. Haffkine's and Dr. Yersin's systems separately. As yet I have received no report regarding Dr. Yersin's work beyond the telegram on page 15 of
  264
  the Plague Papers distributed to hon. Members on Tuesday last. The results of inoculation are ascertained and reported as far as possible, as will be seen from the telegrams on pages 15 and 109 of the Blue Book, and from the Bombay Government plague telegram of March 29 published in yesterday's newspapers.

  WEIGHING CATTLE.
  SIR HENRY CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether an auctioneer, who advertises and sells cattle by public auction, and whose mart has not been exempted from the provisions of the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act, 1891, is bound to weigh and deliver a ticket specifying the true weight of cattle, whenever required by a buyer to do so, or is entitled to keep the buyer waiting until the end of the sale (sometimes two or three hours) on the ground that the weighing machine is being used as a collecting pen for holding cattle previous to sale, and that the machine must be balanced and the cattle weighed afterwards; and whether a buyer is entitled to have his cattle weighed in hundredweights and pounds, in the same way that coals are weighed under the Third Schedule of the Weights and Measures Act, 1889?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. WALTER LONG,): The law provides that in every auction mart at which cattle are habitually or periodically sold there shall be some person appointed to have charge of the weighing machine which is required to be provided, and if any such person refuses or neglects to weigh cattle when required, or to deliver a ticket specifying the true weight of the cattle weighed, he is liable to be fined. Whether it would be held that such liability would be incurred under circumstances such as those suggested is a hypothetical question with regard to which I do not feel that I could with advantage express an opinion. I am advised that a buyer of cattle is only entitled to require such information as to their weight to be given to him as is afforded by the particular machine provided at the market or mart at which they are sold.

  QUEEN'S DIAMOND JUBILEE (PAUPERS).
  MR. J. G. HOLBURN: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Scottish Local Government Board can empower parish councils to make a special allowance to recipients of parochial relief and poorhouse inmates; and, if so, will the Board give parish councils permission to make such special allowance in June next during the time of national rejoicing on the occasion of Her Gracious Majesty's Diamond Jubilee?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The Local Government Board has no power to sanction, nor have parish councils power to incur, illegal expenditure, and expenditure in excess of necessary maintenance would he clearly illegal.

  MILITARY TRAINING CAMP (SCOTLAND).
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether inquiry has been made as to the possibility of acquiring a sufficient area for a camp of exercise in Scotland at a reasonable price and at a convenient centre; or if, in the absence of such a report, instructions will now be sent to the General Officer commanding in Scotland to make such preliminary investigation as may be necessary to decide the question of whether this acquisition, if desired, could be made by Government?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The Secretary of State is fully alive to the desirability of a training camp for Scotland, but no information is before him to show that a suitable area could be procured in Lanarkshire or in any other convenient part of the country. Barry Links has recently been acquired at large cost for camping purposes. It has an area of 3,461 acres; and will, it is hoped, be used largely by the regular and auxiliary forces in Scotland. It is, however, to he observed that the troops in Scotland belong, for the must part, to the auxiliary forces; and the military authorities hold that they derive great advantage by being brought in detachments to train with the regulars in the southern camps.

  LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the case of Adams v. Dunseath was heard on the second statutory application, and what was the result?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The application to fix a fair rent for a second statutory term in this case was heard on February 10th, and it is expected that the decision will be announced next week.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could explain how it was that these gentlemen had taken two months to make up their minds in reference to this case.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir. I am unable to give any explanation on the subject.
  MR. R. MCGHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will make inquiries as to the correspondence which has passed between William Livingstone, of Annsborough House, Lurgan, and the Land Commission respecting the purchase of a farm of land on the estate of Mary Leney, in the town-land of Drumnakelly, conveyed by a vesting order as 30a. 2r. 10p. by the Land Commission; whether he is aware that, on a survey being made since by a highly qualified surveyor, the farm has been found to contain only 29a. 2r. 5p. 0r 1a. 0r. 5p. less than Mr. Livingstone has been charged for as conveyed to him; and whether he will communicate with the Land Commission with the view of having Mr. Livingstone recouped out of the balance of the purchase money still in the hands of the Land Commission?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: An agreement for purchase of the holding referred to was signed by Mary Livingstone who subsequently conveyed her interest to William Livingstone. The agreement was for the purchase of the holding therein described as containing 30a. 2r. l0p. The Land Commission Inspector reported that the area appeared correct and the boundaries correctly marked on the map, and the holding was accordingly described in the vesting order as containing 30a. 2r. 10p. or thereabouts. The Land Commission has no reason to believe that this description is inaccurate, but it should be borne in mind that what

  267
  is vested in the purchaser is the holding as in the occupation of the purchasing tenant. What was agreed to be purchased was the holding; the purchase money was arrived at by agreement between the parties, and would not be affected by such an error in the description of the area, if such had been made. The holding which he contracted to buy has been vested in the purchaser, and he does not appear to have suffered any injury for which he should be recouped.
  MR. M. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the important question as to the Ulster custom raised by Mr. Hume, B.L., before the Chief Land Commission at its recent sitting in Belfast, as published in the Belfast papers of Saturday last: whether the Sub-Commissioners and Court valuers have been in the habit of making no allowance in rent in respect of rights under the Ulster custon over and above the exemptions given for improvements made by the tenant: and whether considering this serious infringement of the Ulster custom, some steps will be taken to protect the tenant farmers of Ulster in the full enjoyment of that custom which Parliament has already' recognised as their light?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Questions as to allowance from rent in respect of the Ulster Tenant-right custom were raised in several cases before the Land Commission at their recent sittings at Armagh and Belfast. The questions referred to were so raised on the re-hearing of cases by way of appeal from the decisions of Sub-Commission Courts. Judgment has not yet been given and the Land Commission are unable to make any statement in reference to these cases which are still sub judice
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that there is not a single Ulster man a member of that Sub-Commission?
  MR. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the Question.
  MR. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, considering that according to the recent Return it appears that out of 73 Lay Sub-Commissioners in connection with the Irish Land Commissioners, 43 of them have been
  268
  appointed by the present Government temporarily only, and that their period of appointment will expire on the 31st December next, he will make a statement to prevent them from being in any way influenced against the tenants in their decisions by reason of their present appointment being only temporary?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I altogether decline to accept the assumption made in the question that these Assistant Commissioners will be influenced against the tenants by reason of their present appointment being only temporary.
  MR. McCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the feeling of deep dissatisfaction prevailing among the farmers of the North of Ireland, owing to the insufficiency of the reductions of rent for the second statutory term given by the Sub-Commissions now administering the fair rent provisions of the Land Acts there?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am aware that there are complaints amongst, the tenant-farmers in the North of Ireland that the rents are not being sufficiently reduced for the second statutory term. There are corresponding complaints amongst the landlords that the reductions are too great. [Cheers.]
  MR. P. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that out of 60 cases of appeal by the landlords on the Colclough and other estates in Wexford, the rents fixed by the Sub-Commissioners were nearly all increased; and (2) will the schedules to be filled by the Chief Commissioners under the new Land Act, showing the ground of increase in each case, be available for inspection; and how can they be obtained?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is the fact, I am informed, that nearly all the rents referred to in the first paragraph were increased by the Land Commission. The Schedules under Section 1, Sub-section 1, of the Act of 1896, are being prepared in these cases and will shortly be ready. Copies may be obtained in the ordinary way.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many estates have so far been referred by the Land Judge to the Land Commission

  269
  for valuation under section 40 of the recent Land Act; whether the valuation by the Land Commission is made by persons appointed as Sub-Commissioners, and whether by one or by two; how many Sub-Commissioners the Land Commission have at their disposal for this work; whether Sub-Commissioners are withdrawn for the purpose from the work of fixing fair rents; and whether the Land Commission propose to make arrangements to allocate Sub-Commissioners for this special work?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Fourteen estates have, so far, been referred to the Land Commission by the Land judge under Section 40 of the Act of 1896. The holdings in all cases under the Land Purchase Acts, as well as eases coining under Section 40, are inspected and valued by the Resident Inspector or by one Assistant Commissioner out of a number of eight who are now employed on this work. Two of these Assistant Commissioners were recently withdrawn from fair-rent work, their places in the latter department being filled. The six remaining Assistant Commissioners have not been employed on fair-rent work for some years past.

  LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND).
  MR. J. J. SHEE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, a reserve of £200,000 having been formed under the provisions of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, the Exchequer contribution of £40,000 annually has been, or is about to be, devoted to providing labourers' cottages under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts; and whether the county percentage paid from 1891 until its abolition by the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, has been, or is about to be, devoted to carrying out the Labourers (Ireland) Acts in accordance with the enactment contained in the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: With the permission of my right hon. Friend I will reply to this Question. As regards the Exchequer contribution of £40,000 a year, the regulations respecting it, have been settled and the necessary steps are about to be taken with a view to the early distribution of the grant for the financial year ended yesterday. With
  270
  regard to the county percentage, the final certificate of Transfer to the Local Taxation (Ireland) account was received by the Irish Government on March 29th, and the Government is in communication with the Local Government Board with a view to its application to carrying out the Labourers Acts.
  MR. SHEE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether £10,000,000 of Guaranteed Land Stock have yet been issued under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891; and, if so, whether the Treasury have availed themselves of the provision contained in section three of that Act to give notice that the Guaranteed Land Stock issued thereafter shall yield dividends only at the rate of 2½ per cent., so that the purchase annuities may be reduced as provided to £3 17s. 6d. per cent.?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir. MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): Only £2,800,000 stock has at present been created.

  TECHNICAL EDUCATION.
  MR. SHEE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education (1) whether the making of a grant in aid of technical education by a local authority in Ireland is a condition precedent to the making of a similar grant by the Science and Art Department; and (2) whether the same rule applies to England, Scotland and Wales; if so, how many local authorities in England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland respectively made, grants in aid of technical education in the years 1895 and 1896, and what were the aggregates of the corresponding sums allocated by the Science and Art Department to England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland respectively?
  SIR J. GORST: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. The answer to the second question is, that in England, Scotland and Wales no grant in aid of technical education is made by the Science and Art Department.

  LOCAL LOANS STOCK.
  MR. SHEE: I. beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the actual rates of interest at which the Treasury borrowed the money issued as Local Loans stock; whether any Local

  271
  Loans stock has been issued, what is the aggregate of repayments of Local Loans, and what is the aggregate of borrowings since 1890; and, whether the Government will introduce a Bill to fix the rate of interest charged to local authorities at a sum which will cover the actual cost to the Treasury?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The original Local Loans stock (amounting to £36,526,056, and issued at par on August 16th, 1887,) was raised at 3 per cent. Local Loans stock amounting to £1,927,710, and issued at 103¾ on August 20th, 1888, was raised at about £2 17s. 10d. per cent. Local Loans stock amounting to £2,500,000, and issued at about 100⅜ on February 21st, 1889, was raised at about £2 18s. per cent. (a) No Local Loans stock has been issued since 1890. (b) The principal repaid between March 31st, 1890, and March 31st, 1897, was £15,876,852. (c) The advances to lending departments between March 31st, 1890, and March 31st, 1897, for loans to borrowers were £15,764,269. I hope to introduce a Bill this year to reduce the rate of interest in future cases, but I doubt if it will be possible to apply it to existing loans.
  MR. SHEEasked whether that sum had been obtained by tenders in the open market?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I believe so, but, as the hon. Member will see, nothing has been issued since 1890.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS.
  MR. SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether the Local Government Board have received complaints from labourers in various parts of Ireland, whose names were given as the "specific instances" in representations under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, as to the letting of the cottages built on these representations to other persons; (2) whether, where a labourer named as "specific instance" seeks the erection of a new house to replace his existing unsanitary house, the Board of Guardians are entitled, having regard to Section 17 of the Labourers Act 1885, to let the
  272
  new house erected to other than the labourer named as "specific instance" if the latter continues to reside in the house condemned as unfit for habitation; and (3) whether the Inspectors of the Local Government Board have specially reported the unsanitary houses of which evidence was given to them at local inquiries under the Labourers Acts; and, if so, whether steps will be taken to compel the Boards of Guardians, which disregard the law in this matter, to carry out the provisions of Section 17 already mentioned?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The reply to the first paragraph is, Yes. As regards the second paragraph, the Local Government Board are of opinion, to which they have frequently given expression, that the Labourers Acts contemplate that the cottages authorised in pursuance of representations based on the ground of the unfitness of existing houses for human habitation should, when built, be lot to the occupants of the condemned houses. Reports of the nature mentioned in the third paragraph have been furnished by the Board's Inspectors, and have, in every instance, been communicated to the Board of Guardians concerned; but the Local Government Board have no power to compel the local authority to let the cottages to the labourers whose houses were mentioned in the original representations.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that James Donohue, the owner of a farm at Ballina, county Clare, refuses to give possession of a plot of land upon which a labourer's cottage was built by the Kildysart Board of Guardians for a labourer named Thomas Ayres, although Donohue contracted to have the cottage completed last November; that it is still unfinished; and that he has been paid for the plot; and whether the Local Government Board will take steps to compel him to complete the cottage and give possession of the land at once, so that Thomas Ayers may do his spring sowing?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: A complaint of the nature referred to in the first paragraph has been received by the Local Government Board, who have called for the observations of the Board of Guardians thereon. Pending the receipt

  273
  of these observations, I am not in a position to reply to the question.

  MITCHELSTOWN UNION (ELECTION OF GUARDIANS).
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether his attention has been called to the proceedings at the recent election of two Poor Law Guardians for the electoral division of Mitchelstown (Mitchelstown Union), at which it appears that the voting papers issued were marked "Election" for one guardian only; that a number of proxy and occupation votes were unduly credited to two candidates on behalf of a landlord and his agent in respect of six evicted farms on the Kingston Estate, that occupation votes in respect of property held upon mortgage were improperly allowed to a Mr. Roche, and that in consequence of general irregularity about one-third of the voting papers were returned unfilled; and (2) whether he will direct an inquiry to be made into these allegations, and into the way this election has been conducted by the Returning Officer, and order another election to be held?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The fact is as stated in the first Question. The Local Government Board are now investigating the matters in connection with this election, and will, if necessary, direct an inquiry to be held into the circumstances of the case.

  BAILIEBOROUGH PETTY SESSIONS (COUNTY CAVAN).
  MR. S. YOUNG: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether the magistrates of the Bailieborough Petty Sessions District, in the county of Cavan, have acted legally in electing by a majority of one Mr. J. Butler Stopford, of Oristown, county Meath, a licensed publican, and a man in his 41st year, to the office of petty sessions clerk for said district, contrary to the Lord Lieutenant's circular in that behalf addressed to them by the Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks in Ireland, containing instructions for their guidance and direction; whether the said magistrates were advised by the Chairman, Mr. Starkie, R.M. (who voted against the eligibility of the said J. B.
  274
  Stopford on the ground of age) to adhere to and observe the rules laid down for their guidance by the Law Officers of the Crown; and whether His Excellency will, in the circumstances, fiat an election held in disregard to his directions, and contrary to the advice of the resident magistrate as contained in said circular; and if in future licensed publicans are to be included in the list of privileged persons, such as retired district inspectors and head constables, in whose favour the limit of age for the office is to be extended?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): The election of Mr. Stopford under the circumstances stated in the Question was invalid, and the Lord Lieutenant informed the Registrar of Petty Session clerks some days ago that there must, be a fresh election. A licensed publican is debarred by Statute from being appointed to a Petty Sessions clerkship.

  PROTESTANT JURORS (IRELAND).
  MR. EDWARD BARRY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he will explain why it is that Protestant jurors are summoned more frequently to the Cork Assizes and County Courts than Catholic jurors; whether the Crown officials have received remonstrances from Protestant jurors who are constantly taken away from their business at great inconvenience; and whether he will direct that in future all jurors shall be summoned in rotation?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: The jurors are summoned in due rotation as provided by the Statute, and no selection of any kind is made. I am informed that there is no foundation for the statement that Protestant jurors have in fact been summoned more frequently than Catholic jurors, or that any remonstrance has been addressed by the former to any official. I must decline to give any direction such as is mentioned in the Question.

  IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Postmaster General would consent to and recommend the

  275
  Midland Great Western Railway Company to run one third-class carriage on the Irish Limited Mail day trains?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General would have no objection to a third-class carriage being run in the Limited Day Mail trains on the Midland Great Western Railway provided punctuality in the working be maintained, and the hon. Member's suggestion shall be brought under the notice of the Company. The matter, however, is one upon which the Company alone can decide.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that at a meeting of the Bawnboy Guardians on 22nd March a letter, dated 19th March, was read from Mr. Henry Pleus, secretary to the Great Northern Railway Company, stating that up to that date no representations had reached the Great Northern Railway Company on the subject of an acceleration of the morning mails from Dundalk to Enniskillen and Cavan; and whether these representations have since been made; if not, when will they be made?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General has no knowledge of the letter stated to have been read at the meeting of the Bawnboy Guardians. His Department is, however, in communication with the Railway Company, and special attention is being directed to the strong desire which has been expressed for an acceleration of the morning mail train from Dundalk to Enniskillen end Cavan.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLasked when the Postmaster General entered into communications with the Railway Company.
  MR. HANBURYsaid he had not the information.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that, in consequence of the present arrangement of carrying the mails by car from Clones to Cavan and Belturbet, the mails for districts west of Belturbet are generally half an hour late in being delivered; whether he is aware that on Saturday morning last they were 1½ hours late; and, can he undertake to bring this matter, as well as the generally unsatisfactory carriage
  276
  of mails in Cavan, to the notice of the Great Northern Railway Company, with a view to making proposals for a change?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is not aware that in consequence of the present arrangements the mails for places west of Belturbet are generally half an hour late, but he has called for a full report on the subject. He is aware of the exceptional delay on the morning of Saturday, the 27th ultimo, which was due to the late arrival of the mail train at Clones. The railway company, who were communicated with on the subject, have explained that the delay on the 27th ultimo arose from an accident to their signalling apparatus. It would be of no use to approach the company in reference to the conveyance of the night mail by train, unless the Postmaster General were prepared to pay the cost of an additional train, which would certainly not be warranted; but, as I have informed the hon. Member in reply to another question, the Department is in communication with the railway company relative to the desire which exists for an acceleration of the day mail.
  MR. RICHARD M. DANE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any decision has yet been arrived at respecting the arrival and dispatch of mails between Enniskillen and Bundoran and the intervening districts by rail, instead of, as at present, by car?
  MR. HANBURY: As already explained in answer to previous questions in the House, the Post Office would not be justified in calling upon the railway company to run a special train at the public cost from Dundalk to Enniskillen in connection with the day mail train from Dublin, and the same remark applies with even greater force to places beyond Enniskillen, such as Bundoran. The Secretary in Dublin has, however, been instructed to bring before the railway company the strong desire expressed by the inhabitants of the district for an improvement of their day mail service, in the hope that they may see their way to run a suitable train, but the Department has not yet been made acquainted with the decision of the company.

  STAMP DUTY (IRELAND).
  MR. EDWARD BARRY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, although the Stamp Act fixes the duty payable on agreements at sixpence, the Inland Revenue authorities in Dublin imposed stamp duty amounting to ten shillings in each case on the forms of agreement entered into with the Board of Guardians of the Clonakilty Union for the erection of cottages under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts; whether he will direct that in future sixpence only will be charged; and whether he will refund the excessive duty paid on application being made therefor?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The agreements, which, under the Stamp Act of 1891, are charged with the duty of sixpence, are agreements under hand only. The agreements to which the hon. Member refers are presumably executed by the Board of Guardians under their Common Seal, and, for that reason, are regarded by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue as chargeable with the general deed duty of ten shillings. It is, of course, open to anyone, who desires to contest the assessment of the Commissioners, to bring a case before the Courts, but I have no power to order abatements or repayments of duty in the particular cases to which the hon. Member refers.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Would the right hon. Gentleman permit the Irish Boards of Guardians to enter into agreements executed by members of the boards, as is done in the case of the town councils?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: That is hardly a question for me to answer.

  ARMY REGULATIONS (WEARING THE SHAMROCK).
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the case of James Cummins, who served 40 years in the Army, having the medal and clasps, was with General Lord Roberts in the campaign of 1868, was for several years foreman in the Ordnance Store Yard, and finally was suspended and afterwards dismissed owing to his being reported by an officer
  278
  for wearing a shamrock on St. Patrick's Day; whether the recommendation of the Duke of Connaught that a gratuity be given to James Cummins was carried out; and whether, seeing that this soldier committed suicide in the river Thames and was buried in Aldershot on the 17th November 1896, steps will be taken with a view of allowing the national emblem to be worn in the Army on the several commemoration days in the United Kingdom?
  MR. BRODRICK: This man was discharged from the Army with a pension in 1878. He was subsequently employed as a civilian artificer in the Ordnance Store Department. A year ago he was suspended from duty for being drunk and negligent while in charge of the workshops. While under suspension his accounts were examined, and considerable discrepancies were discovered. He was consequently discharged, and no gratuity was awarded him. There is no record of any question having arisen as regards his wearing the shamrock, and the above were the sole grounds of his discharge.
  MR. FLAVINasked whether a recommendation was not made by the Duke of Connaught that a gratuity should be given to this man?
  MR. BRODRICKsaid it was the fact that the Duke of Connaught asked that, in consideration of his long services, a gratuity should be given to him, but the regulations which governed such gratuities made it impossible to comply with that recommendation.
  MR. FLAVIN: Would the right hon. Gentleman allow the separate nationalities of the Army when not, on parade to wear the national emblem?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the Question.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the attention of the Secretary of State for War has been called to the fact that Sub Lieutenant Hollingshed-Blundell, of the King's Royal Rifles, now stationed at Aldershot, on seeing a private soldier, an Irishman named Grindle, with a shamrock in his cap on St. Patrick's Day, ordered him to take that dirty bit of greenstuff out of his cap: and on Grindle telling him that Irish soldiers were allowed to wear the shamrock on St. Patrick's Day, ordered

  279
  Grindle to be confined in the guard room; and that Grindle was subsequently punished with seven days' imprisonment and hard labour; whether, in view of the fact that an assurance was given by the late right hon Edward Stanhope, on the 10th June 1892, that if an Irish soldier intimated his desire to his Commanding Officer to wear a shamrock, he thought the Commanding Officer would be willing to grant his wish, some distinct regulation will be established for the guidance of Commanding Officers with respect to the wearing of the shamrock by their men; and whether the conduct of Sub-Lieutenant Blundell and the Commanding Officer will be brought under the notice of the Commander-in-Chief?
  MR. BRODRICK: The facts seem to have been substantially as stated in the Question. The late Mr. Stanhope stated that the sanction of the Commanding Officer must first be obtained for the wearing of emblems or any addition to the uniform, and this was not done by the private in question. The particulars of this case, however, were only brought yesterday to the notice of the General Officer commanding at Aldershot, who investigated them. I may add that there is a strong desire on the part of the authorities that all consideration, consistent with discipline, should be shown by Commanding Officers to legitimate national feeling. [Irish cheers.]
  Mr. MACNEILL: Is it the fact that this man was sentenced to seven days' imprisonment with hard labour, and that the Commanding Officer was not communicated with? By whose order was this man sentenced to seven days' imprisonment?
  MR. BRODRICK: I presume by the Commanding Officer. As I said, the facts are now being investigated.
  MR. MACNEILL: This is a very important matter. [Laughter.] Is the Commanding Officer to investigate the facts after he has sentenced the man to seven days' imprisonment?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is replying to the answer which has been given and arguing upon it.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman as an Irishman approves of that sentence?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must know that that is an improper question to ask.
  COLONEL BLUNDELL: Arising out of that, I would ask whether the private was on parade at the time in uniform, in the ranks, and whether he was punished, not for wearing the shamrock, but for disobeying an order——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman has stated that the matter is the subject of inquiry now.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: May I ask whether, if any Irish soldiers are to be sent to Crete—[Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order!]—they will be allowed to wear the shamrock there? [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! If the hon. Member persists so frequently in continuing to ask questions after I have risen and ruled them out of order, I shall have to call the attention of the House to the matter. [Ministerial cheers.]

  POST OFFICE ESTABLISHMENTS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will say what proportion of the estimated cost of the changes contemplated in carrying out the recommendations of Lord Tweedmouth's Committee is on behalf of the Telegraph Department of the Post Office in offices where the staffs are not amalgamated, and also the amount involved in improving the position of head postmasters who are receiving less than £500 per annum?
  MR. HANBURY: The estimated average annual cost of giving effect to the recommendations of Lord Tweed-mouth's Committee is (1) on Telegraph Account as regards officers where the staff is not amalgamated, £26,480; (2) for improving the position of Head Postmasters receiving less than £500 a year, £3,929.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General (1) on what principle of classification the city of Cork postmen are placed only in

  281
  the fourth scale under the new classification; (2) whether the second class sorting clerks in Dublin, Belfast, Limerick, and Cork are in receipt of a uniform scale of pay, and why a different practice is to prevail as regards postmen; (3) whether within the last 15 years the maximum pay of second class sorting clerks has increased from 24s. to 40s., and now, by the removal of the barrier between first and second class, to 52s., i.e., by 28s. per week, whereas, in the same period, the maximum salary of postmen in Cork has only increased by 4s., i.e., from 20s. to 24s., and is not at all increased by the recommendations of the Tweedmouth Committee; and(4) whether the position of the Cork postmen under the new arrangements will be reconsidered?
  MR. HANBURY: The classification of postmen under the new system, as under the old, is based upon the size of the town in which the men work, the cost of living and the value of outdoor labour in the locality, and the postmen at Cork fall into the fourth class under this system. Thus Cork comes within the same category as Limerick and other towns of like character. The pay of sorting clerks is regulated by the amount and character of the work performed, which varies greatly according to the size and importance of the, place. The pay of second class sorting clerks at all offices where the staff was divided into classes rose under the old system to 40s. a week. The pay of the first class, however, which at Dublin and Belfast rose to 56s. and 54s. respectively—is at Cork and Limerick only 52s. and 50s. a week. As regards the third paragraph of the hon. Member's Question, the facts are, substantially, as stated as regards the maximum of the scales, but it must be remembered that the postmen will receive the benefit of an increased number of good conduct stripes, each carrying extra pay of 1s. a week, as well as an improved increment of 1s. 6d. instead of 1s. a week. It is not proposed to reconsider the case of the Cork postmen.

  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY (SIR F. CARRINGTON).
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies her Major General
  282
  Carrington, when commanding the British forces in Rhodesia, received (in addition to his full pay and allowances from the War Office) any allowances from the Chartered Company; if so, what; and whether Major-General Carrington sent any Reports to the Colonial Secretary in regard to occurrences in Rhodesia, amongst them one headed "Obstruction from interested parties," and whether these Reports can be laid upon the Table of the House?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am informed that Sir F. Carrington, like other Army officers, drew a special field allowance from the funds of the British South Africa Company, but I am unable to say the amount. Sir F. Carrington has furnished a general report on the operations under several different heads, none of which answer the description of the hon. Member. These reports are chiefly concerned with military matters, and I do not think that there would be any advantage in presenting them to Parliament.
  MR. ALLAN: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that, in addition to Major General Carrington s full pay and allowance paid by the War Department, he also accepted from the British South Africa Company a daily allowance of two guineas and a ration allowance of 2s. 6d., and had all his hotel expenses paid to him while at Salisbury by the same Company?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already said I do not know what was the amount of the payment by the South Africa Company.
  MR. ALLAN: May I ask whether it is in accordance with the regulations for the general officer in command to take money from both parties?
  MR. SPEAKER: Notice must be given of that Question.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That is a question for the War Office.

  SECONDARY EDUCATION.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a joint memorandum from the Incorporated Association of Head Masters and Mr. Lawrie on matters of public interest connected with the Report of the Royal Commission on Secondary Education; and,

  283
  if so, whether the memorandum can be printed and laid upon the Table of the House?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,: I have received the two memoranda referred to, and if my hon. Friend will move for an address for the Papers, the Government will have no objection to laying them on the Table of the House.

  HANTS REGIMENT (FIRST VOLUNTEER BATTALION).
  MR. W. H. MYERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War will he explain why the Officer commanding the First Volunteer Battalion Hants Regiment, having upon the rolls five in excess of the authorised establishment, has been directed by the War Office to strike off five efficient volunteers in preference to five non-efficients?
  MR. BRODRICK: A commanding officer is not entitled to enrol volunteers in excess of his establishment. If he does so, when his roll is received, he is ordered to strike off those last enrolled as the men for whom there was no proper vacancy.

  DEPORTATION OF PAUPERS.
  MR. JAMES DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say if he has conferred with the Lord Advocate for Scotland and the President of the Local Government Board, as promised in the Queen's Speech, with the view to preventing the deportation of paupers from Scotland and England to Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Queen's Speech contained no promise of the nature indicated. I have been in conference with the Secretary for Scotland and the President of the Local Government Board, and the subject is still under consideration.

  VACCINATION ACTS.
  MR. J. W. LOGAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that the Guardians of the Uppingham Union have, within a period of four
  284
  and a-half years, caused 16 summonses to be served upon, one parent for noncompliance with the Vaccination Law; and if he will direct the attention of the Guardians of that and other unions in which parents are being similarly prosecuted to the letter of the Local Government Board, issued in 1875, in which guardians were warned that when in a particular case repeated prosecutions have failed in their object, it becomes necessary to carefully consider the question whether the continuance of a fruitless contest with the parent may not have a tendency to produce mischievous results, by exciting sympathy with the person prosecuted, and thus creating a more extended opposition to the law?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I have no information as to the number of summonses served in the case referred to in the Question, but a copy of the letter issued in 1875 was sent to the Guardians of the Uppingham Union upon this subject, and at their request, as recently as the 15th of January last.
  MR. LOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the police on duty at the sales of goods of persons who refused to comply with the Vaccination Law at Maidenhead acted as bidders and partisans generally; that three men who were committed to prison in default of payment of fines under the same law were conducted through the streets of Maidenhead handcuffed, and were roughly handled by the police; and if he proposes taking any action in the matter?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I have made inquiry and am informed that some of the police did bid for some of the things at the public auction; also that the three men referred to were handcuffed, this step being necessary, in the judgment of the police, in order to prevent a rescue. The police, however, emphatically deny that the men were roughly handled, and I see no grounds for believing that such was the case. I propose making further inquiry as to the bidding by the police at the auction.

  CRETE.
  CAPTAIN PIRIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the case that the British Admiral in Cretan waters has asked for the dispatch to Crete of an

  285
  additional battalion of 600 men; and if it is intended to comply with the request, whether he will urge upon the Government to send an English battalion and not another Schottish one? The HON. MEMBER added: May I also ask whether it was owing to an exaggerated feeling of modesty that the right hon. Gentleman could not give the House any information? [Cheers.]
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Questions put merely for the purpose of satire are not in order.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. CURZON,): Yes, Sir. The British Admiral asked for more troops on the ground that the number already supplied was insufficient for the garrison of Candia, where there is gathered together a very large population. His request has been agreed to, and the requisite number of troops will be drawn from the Seaforth Highlanders and the Royal Welsh Fusiliers at Malta.
  MR. REGINALD MCKENNA: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why a Welsh regiment should be selected for this work? [Cheers.]
  MR. CURZON: Can the hon. Member tell me any reason why a Welsh regiment should not be selected? [Loud Ministerial cheers.] I imagine that Welshmen are as willing to do their duty as any other subjects of the Queen. [Renewed cheers.]
  MR. MCKENNA: Because the work they are asked to do is wholly repugnant to the feelings of the Welsh people. [Ministerial laughter and Opposition cheers.]
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Cretan Insurgent Chiefs, who were summoned under a flag of truce to the village outside Retimo by the Consuls, were fired at three times when acting in obedience to the summons by the Turkish troops; whether, notwithstanding the urgent remonstrance of the Russian Consul to one Hushni Pasha, the Governor, who told the Turkish soldiers to stop firing, the Turkish soldiers continued to fire; whether the object of the proposed conference was the explanation by the Consul to the Cretan Chiefs of the meaning of the promised autonomy; and whether the Concert of Europe still maintain that the presence
  286
  of Turkish troops in Crete are essential to preserve law and order?
  MR. JAMES BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information regarding two statements contained in The Times of 31st March, from its correspondents at Canea and Athens respectively, viz., that on Monday last eight delegates from the Cretan insurgents, who were coming to Koube with a flag of truce to confer with the Russian Consul at his request, were attacked by the Turkish troops in the entrenchments, with the consequence that fighting took place, and the conference could not be held; that on Monday last the officers of the Foreign fleets at Retimo, who failed to convey the proclamation of autonomy to the insurgents in consequence of an attack made upon the latter by Turkish troops and Bashi-Bazouks, again endeavoured to carry out their mission, but, owing to the threatening attitude of the Bashi-Bazouks, were compelled to return to the town; and whether, having regard to these incidents (if correctly stated), and to other similar incidents, Her Majesty's Government will endeavour to have steps taken to accelerate the complete removal of the Turkish troops from Crete?
  MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Consul reported on the 29th that the Russian Consul, who was engaged at Rethymo in preparing for the installation of the Russian troops, invited the insurgents to meet him and the Commander of the Russian troops. Fifty Christians came from the village of Azipopoulo, and sent a deputation of eight to the appointed place twenty minutes from the town; and although carrying a white flag, they were fired upon by Turkish troops from their entrenchments. [Opposition cheers.] The Christians abstained from firing—[Opposition cheers]—but as the Turks continued, 200 insurgents came down, and fighting continued till evening; the losses were not yet known. The Russian Consul is said to have made strong remonstrances to the Governor, stating that he would report his want of good faith. He subsequently succeeded in interviewing the insurgents at Azipopoulo, and they are reported to have refused autonomy and insisted on union with Greece. [Opposition cheers.] As I have

  287
  previously informed the House, the Government are taking every step in their power to accelerate the withdrawal of the Turkish troops—[general cheering]—though it must be clear that until the Powers are in a position to replace the garrisons withdrawn, which they are endeavouring by the dispatch of additional reinforcements to do, they are not justified in exposing to the risk of successful attack the refugee population in the seaport towns. [Ministerial cheers.]
  MR. JOHN DILLON: Arising out of that question, I should like to ask the Under Secretary why the foreign the troops did not exercise the same punitive powers and the same amount of force to prevent the Turkish troops from acting in the scandalous way the right hon. Gentleman has just described as they exercised against the insurgents. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of this Question.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there has been a fierce fight at Spinalonga; and did the insurgents, having taken a fort on the mainland, swim out to a small island near the fort and sink a Turkish sailing boat filled with arms?
  MR. CURZON: We have received no information to that effect.
  MR. MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask for information?
  MR. CURZON: No, Sir. I am not going to bother our officials about that. [Ministerial cheers.] They have enough to do without being plagued by incessant telegrams. [Ministerial cheers.]
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: On behalf of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Ecclesall (Sir ELLIS ASH-MEAD-BARTLETT), I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to a statement by Baron Pinter, and quoted in the Standard of 31st March, that the worst atrocities have been committed by the Cretan insurgents upon the Turks of both sexes and all ages, and that the dead bodies of Mussulmans, fearfully mutilated, are to be seen lying everywhere in the interior of Crete; and whether Her Majesty's Government will insist upon the appointment of an International Commission, with efficient interpreters, to examine into and report
  288
  upon the expropriation and massacre of the Mussulmans of Crete.
  MR. CURZON: We have heard nothing of the statement quoted in the Standard. Pending the restoration of order in the island, I am afraid it would be premature to discuss the appointment of any such Commission as the hon. Member suggests.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in what respect the object of the Government to restore peace to Crete is served by permitting the importation by the Turks of ammunition into that island?
  MR. CURZON: The Turkish troops still form a considerable portion of the garrison of the towns, and so long as this is the case it is necessary that they should be able to defend the posts held by them against attack. Otherwise the Mussulman population, which is congregated in large numbers in the towns, and which the contingents of the Great Powers have hitherto been insufficient to protect, would be in imminent danger.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs a question of which I have given him private notice—whether his attention has been drawn to the report in the Standard newspaper from Canea, dated yesterday, that Her Majesty's ship Camperdown, having shelled the forces of the insurgents at a distance of about four miles, the insurgent flag having been lowered, and the Christians being in full retreat, the Turkish soldiers sallied out of the fort, and established themselves in the insurgents' position, hoisting the Ottoman flag; that about 11.30 the Turks were still engaged in pouring in a rolling fire on the retreating mass of the insurgents; that the latter replied with great spirit, and that until the Camperdown took to her heavy shells they rather gained ground than lost it, in spite of a tremendous fire from the Russian and Austrian vessels; and I will ask him whether it is in accordance with the policy of Her Majesty's Government that Turkish troops should be employed under cover of British guns in order to hoist the Ottoman flag as a symbol of Turkish rule in Crete? [Opposition cheers.]
  MR. CURZON: We have as yet received no information about the incidents in question. But I do not gather from the

  289
  Report to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, and which I have read, either that Turkish troops were employed under cover of British guns fur an attack on the Cretan insurgents—on the contrary, they appear to have been engaged in repelling an attack—nor that the Ottoman flag was hoisted as the symbol of Turkish rule in Crete. I imagine that wherever the Turkish troops fight they fight tinder the Turkish flag, and that this is a common place of all military proceedings. [Ministerial laughter.]
  SIR CHARLES DILKEasked, with reference to the statement of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that further forces are being sent to Crete, as he understood, by the Powers, whether Germany was taking part in that action?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I should prefer notice of that Question.

  MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY.
  MR. W. G. MOUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the Chairman of the Derbyshire Quarter Sessions has been advised from tile Home Office that magistrates for that county who are shareholders either for their own benefit, or as trustees only, or debenture holders in the Midland Railway Company, are disqualified front acting as Justices under Section 60 of the Licensing Act of 1872, in consequence of that company being licensed to sell excisable liquors in its refreshment rooms in that county?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: It is the case that Mr. Barker, the late Chairman, was advised by the Home office that Justices holding shares in railway companies which retailed intoxicating liquors were disqualified from acting under the Licensing Act of 1872, except in the cases specified in Section 60. I think there can be no doubt the same rule would apply to trustees for shareholders or debenture holders.

  AGRICULTURAL RATING ACT.
  MR. W. C. QUILTER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether the Local Government Board, in administer-
  290
  ing the Agricultural Rates Act of last Session, have decided that no grant can be made thereunder in respect of sums required for the service of loans raised by spending authorities, but not actually expended before 25th March 1896; whether in making such decision the Local Government Board have given due effect to the provisions contained in. Subsection (1) of Section 4 of the said Act; and whether, if the Local Government Board are not empowered to equitably adjust the amount of the grant to be awarded in each case, the President will introduce or support a Bill conferring upon the Board the necessary power?
  MR. CHAPLIN: The Local Government Board have considered that, in determining the grant to be paid to a spending authority under the Agricultural Rates Act, they could not take into account prospective expenditure in years subsequent to that ending on the 31st March 1896, and the Board are not prepared to make exceptions to this rule.
  MR. QUILTER: I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that in the case of the East Suffolk County Council, when the Department found they could effect a saving, they did not—
  MR. SPEAKER: Notice must be given of that Question.

  CRIMEAN VETERAN (JOHN BRENNAN).
  MR. JASPER TULLY: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War office whether his attention has been directed to a memorial signed by the magistrates, clergymen, and principal inhabitants of Boyle, and also by the Boyle Board of Guardians, in favour of a Crimean veteran, John Brennan, formerly of the 41st Regiment, who was wounded at Sebastopol; whether the local medical men have sent certificates that Brennan bears the marks of wounds received in action; and whether, in view of his age and his poverty, being in receipt of outdoor relief, he will recommend that a compassionate allowance be granted to this veteran soldier?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL WILLIAMS,): The memorial of John Brennan has been received and considered. Medical certificates that he was wounded in action have

  291
  not been received. I can only repeat the reply I made to the hon. Member on the 28th January last, namely, that there is no record of Brennan being wounded while in the Army, and that his short service of two and a-half years does not qualify him for a special campaign pension.

  ESLIN RIVER DRAINAGE SCHEME.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, having regard to the fact that the Congested Districts Board agreed last June to advance a sum not exceeding £200 for the drainage of the Eslin River and its tributaries in Breandrum Division, in South Leitrim, one of the scheduled districts under that Board, whether he can state what steps have been taken to carry out this undertaking?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Congested Districts Board have no information as to the steps taken by the Drainage Board in consequence of the grant of £200 offered as a contribution towards the proposed works.

  ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE (WEXFOED).
  MR. FRENCH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether he is aware that orders have been issued to fill only every second vacancy occurring in the Royal Naval Reserve at the port of Wexford; (2) if like orders have been issued to any other Irish port; and (3) if he can state any reasons for reducing the Wexford Naval Reserve force?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. E. MACARTNEY,): The answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. The orders apply also to Galway, Limerick, Kinsale, and Youghal. This restriction on enrolment was necessitated by the force being in excess of numbers voted.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT (RETURN OF ESTATES).
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether the first Return of Estates to which Section 40 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act 1890, is to be applied as directed by the Rules under that section is now ready, and whether it will be printed and presented to the House?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: The first Return is now ready. There is nothing in the Statute or Rules requiring that it should be laid upon the Table of the House, but having regard to the general interest taken in the subject at present, the Irish Government are willing that the Return should be laid upon the Table of the House, reserving to themselves the right to decline to do so in the case of future Returns, should it be found undesirable to publish, them.

  LIGHT DUES ON SHIPPING.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade to what extent the annual revenue raised by the light dues charged on shipping is in excess of the annual expenditure on lighting the coast; whether the only European nations which charge the shipping industry with the cost of maintaining lighthouses are the United Kingdom and Turkey, and whether the United States and Canada have abolished the light dues charged on shipping; and whether, having regard to the importance of the shipping trade of the country, the Government will consider the desirability of abolishing the light dues on shipping?
  MR. RITCHIE: If the hon. Gentleman will refer to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Mercantile Marine Fund he will see that, taking the years from 1883–84 to 1894–95, the excess of light revenue over light expenditure was for that period £675,000. The average annual excess for the five years ending March 3, 1896, was £130,955. It must, however, be borne in mind that the Legislature has provided that the fund to which light dues are paid shall bear many charges. As stated in my reply to a Question by the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool on the 19th ult., it is not a fact that the United Kingdom and Turkey are the only European nations which charge the shipping industry with the cost of maintaining lighthouses. In some cases dues, though not levied under the name of light dues, are applied to the maintenance of lights and other works connected with harbours and navigation; but it is impossible in a reply to a question to state the exact circumstances of each country. I am

  293
  unable to hold any hope of introducing a Bill for the abolition of light dues.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLYasked whether it was not the fact that an enormous amount of money was spent for the benefit of the shipping trade of the country?
  MR. LEWISasked how the charge of t he present light dues was justified, seeing that the receipts exceeded the expenditure?
  MR. RITCHIE: I am not aware to what particular assistance the hon. Member for Roscommon refers. As to the other Question, there is no doubt that within the last three or four years there has been a considerable excess in the dues collected over the moneys expended on the lights. On the other hand, for a series of years the fund was in great financial straits, and a considerable amount of money had to be borrowed at various times—as much as £300,000 in all—to provide for the necessary expenditure on lights. That money has now been entirely repaid, but I have already undertaken that, if time can be found, I shall be glad to introduce a Bill for the purpose of rearranging the light dues; and, of course, if it be possible at a future time to reduce the contribution, we shall be glad to do so. But we are proposing to spend considerably more on the light service than has been spent in the past.

  RURAL AUXILIARY POSTMEN
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will secure that rural auxiliary postmen in Ireland doing four or four and a half hours' duty will be allowed twelve week days' holiday, two-thirds pay when sick, and 15s. yearly boot money; and will men doing four hours' duty be classed as assistant postmen; and, if not, what is meant by the statement in the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee that it is impossible the duties of assistant postmen should occupy exactly six hours, but that the great majority of assistant postmen should have six hours, and that none should have less than four hours?
  MR. HANBURY: In accordance with the recommendation of Lord Tweed-mouth's Committee, rural auxiliary postmen doing five hours' work and upwards
  294
  will in future be entitled to the privileges described. But there is no intention of extending these privileges to men doing only four or four and a half hours' duty. Auxiliary postmen will not, under the recommendation of the Committee, be classed as assistant postmen, unless they have been telegraph messengers, or have served in the Army or Navy, and are, waiting for established appointments. Assistant postmen will be entitled to an annual holiday of twelve week days, two-thirds pay when sick, and a boot allowance of 15s. a year, provided their days work is not less than four hours.

  IRISH ACCOUNT (SAVINGS).
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the undertaking to bring Irish savings in expenditure to a separate Irish account is confined to retrenchments in the Irish judicial system, or covers savings made in the entire Irish establishment; and, in the former event only, could he explain what is the ground of distinction between different classes of savings?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: As I explained the other day, I referred to the salaries of Judges, which, in the event of the abolition of Judgeships, would permanently cease. I do not see how a temporary saving, which might be turned into an increase of expenditure by the next year's Estimates, or even by a Supplementary Estimate in the same year, could be treated in the same way.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Are no other savings except the savings on the Judges' salaries to be credited to the Irish account?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I should like to begin with that, and see what we can do.
  MR. J. J. CLANCY: Did not the words of the right hon. Gentleman apply to legal and judicial establishments in Ireland?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: If we can find any other salaries I should be delighted to deal with them in the same way.

  HIGH SHERIFF (CARRICKFERGUS).
  MR. D. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the refusal of Captain Higginson

  295
  to act as high sheriff of the county of the town of Carrickfergus, (1) whether Captain Higginson has any lands within the county; and, if not, why he was nominated as high sheriff for that county; (2) whether he is aware that in 1893 Mr. Standish Grady Parkes-Hutchinson, who was under warrant appointed by the then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland as high sheriff of Queen's County, refused to accept and take on himself the office of sheriff, notwithstanding that he had sufficient lands to answer the Queen and her people, and that the Attorney General having proceeded against Mr. Hutchinson by way of criminal information, the jury disagreed, and Mr. Hutchinson was discharged; and (3) whether, considering that a number of business gentlemen living in Carrickfergus are fit and able to serve, if nominated, he will consider the desirability of relieving Captain Higginson of the costs and inconveniences of a fruitless prosecution?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: With the permission of my right hon. Friend I will reply to this Question. Captain Higginson's case comes on for trial at the end of this month. The first paragraph refers to matters in issue in the suit, and the last paragraph to its possible result; I must decline, therefore, to answer them. The facts as to Mr. Hutchinson's case are not accurately stated. One of the questions in issue in that case was as to the sufficiency of the lands owned by Mr. Hutchinson, and another question in issue was, who was to be the judge of that sufficiency, whether the Crown or the person required to serve? After the jury had disagreed Mr. Hutchinson pleaded guilty, and served as sheriff for the year 1894.

  HORSE BREEDING (IRELAND).
  COLONEL HUGH MCCALMONT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the evidence given recently in London before the Irish Horse Breeding Commission, the whole weight of which was against the introduction of Hackney blood into Ireland as being ruinous to it as a hunter producing or high class harness-horse country, the services of the Hackney stallions belonging to the Congested Districts Board will be withheld pending the finding of the Commission?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have referred this Question to the Congested Districts Board, but I hardly think it likely they will take any action pending the Report of the Commission.

  PRISON WARDERS.
  MR. H. C. F. LUTTRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the recommendations made by the Prison Commissioners last year concerning the warders in prisons, to which he made reference on 10th August 1896 in a speech in this House, had received the assent of the Treasury; and whether he was in a position to hold out hope of some amelioration of their terms of superannuation?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: No, Sir; the Treasury declined to assent to the recommendations of the Commissioners. A further communication from the Commissioners is under consideration, but I cannot go so far as to hold out much hope of the improvement which the warders desire.

  EDUCATION IN WALES (MORTMAIN ACTS).
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether he is aware of the difficulties that have arisen, particularly of recent years, in Wales, in consequence of the liability of a gift of land as a site for a public school to be defeated by the death of the donor within 12 months after the execution of the deed of conveyance; and whether the Government will introduce a Measure enabling limited owners to make indefeasible gifts of real property for the purpose of education and recreation?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,: I am not aware that the provisions of the Mortmain Acts have given rise to any difficulty. In my opinion they are salutary provisions, and I do not think that any sufficient case is made out to justify an amendment of the law.

  CARBIDE OF CALCIUM.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Attorney General if he was consulted by the Home Office before the Petroleum Acts, 1871 to 1881, were declared

  297
  applicable to carbide of calcium; if so, was it on the ground that these Acts apply only to a liquid and not a solid that Section 7 of the Act of 1871 was declared non-applicable to carbide, and the public are forbidden to have the smallest quantity without licence of an admittedly non-inflammable solid; and what means exist for testing the legality of applying by Order in Council (published in The Gazette of 2nd March) Acts dealing with a particular liquid substance, to a solid body not then in the contemplation of Parliament?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I must decline to answer the Question whether I was consulted by the Home Office, or the grounds of any opinion which I may have, given, but I looked into the Act, and, assuming carbide of calcium to be of a like nature from the point of view of danger and liability to explosion, I am of opinion that an Order in Council may properly be made to apply the Petroleum Acts thereto. The legality of the Order can be raised in any proceedings taken to recover a penalty under the Act. The information in the possession of the Home Office, and the accidents which have occurred, do not support the view that the substance is non-inflammable solid. I may add that, the information given me at the Home Office with regard to the substance itself, and the accidents which happen, dues nut confirm the view suggested in the Question.
  In answer to a further question by Mr. T. M. HEALY,
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid: I do not think that the Act dues apply only to liquids.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to give notice that as soon as the Home Office Vote and the salary of the Attorney General come on, I shall raise this Question again.

  RAILWAYS (IRELAND).
  MR. SHEE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that a Royal Commission in 1836 declared in favour of the view that Irish railways should be worked as one system and under one management; and whether, having regard to the multitude of railway systems and railway directors in Ireland, and the disastrous effect of high
  298
  railway rates on an agricultural country, the Government will consider the advisability of asking for the appointment of a Parliamentary Committee to inquire whether the purchase and management of Irish railways by the State is desirable and practicable?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary requests me to say that the Government do not propose to appoint a further Royal Commission on the suggested State purchase of Irish railways. That principle was condemned by a Royal Commission appointed in 1865, and again by another Royal Commission appointed in 1886. The condition of affairs upon which those decisions were based does not seem subsequently to have been altered.

  PRIME MINISTER (ABSENCE ABROAD).
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that the Prime Minister is also one of the principal Secretaries of State, and that the duties of any one of the five principal Secretaries of State can be constitutionally discharged by the other principal Secretaries of State, any arrangement, and, if so, what arrangement has been made, having regard to the critical aspect of foreign relations, for the discharge of duties relating to the department of Foreign Affairs heretofore discharged by Lord Salisbury al the Foreign Office, in his absence from this country; on whom do the duties and responsibilities of Lord Salisbury, in his capacity of Prime Minister and chief of the Cabinet, devolve in his absence from this country; what is the nature of the responsibility of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, having regard to the fact that he is not a Minister of the Crown?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: There is no change in the duties or responsibilities of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary at the present time—[laughter]—and, as regards the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, his position is precisely the same as that of all his predecessors in that office. [Laughter and cheers.]
  MR. MACNEILL: Were all his predecessors Ministers of the Crown, or were they appointed by letter of the gentlemen

  299
  who were Secretaries of State for the time? That is an easy Question. [Laughter.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: If the hon. Gentleman is making researches in constitutional law, I think he had better address his Question to the Attorney General. [Ministerial laughter and cheers.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (EASTER HOLIDAYS).
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, for the convenience of Members, lie can now state when it is proposed to adjourn for and reassemble after Easter?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASUURY: I cannot now give a definite or final reply to this question; but my hope in that after a morning sitting on Tuesday week, the 13th, the House will adjourn for the Easter holidays. The precise length of the holidays is not finally settled; but I hope it will not be necessary to meet until the Monday following the Easter Monday.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Do the government intend to take the morning on the Tuesday for Government business?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: My present idea—but it is not a fixed one—is to have a morning sitting as usual, and that at that sitting nothing should be settled but the adjournment for the holidays, and the introduction by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary of the Bill relating to the Irish Agricultural Board.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: How soon after the holidays will the Budget be taken?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Either on the Thursday after we meet or on the following Monday, I should think. But I am not sure.
  MR. BRYCE: Do the Government intend to take the Employers' Liability Bill on this side of Easter or the other?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Probably not till after Easter.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: If we forego an Irish Debate on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair for the consideration of the Budget, or on the first. Resolution when the Chairman is in the Chair, will the Government devote a reasonable amount of time on the Second Reading of the Budget Bill, or on some
  300
  other stage, for the discussions of outstanding Irish questions?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I believe that it is on the Second Heading that the occasion would arise for continuing the discussion on which, we have already spent some little Parliamentary time. The Government would have no desire unduly to curtail the Debate on that stage of the Bill; but I am unwilling to say that we would give a "reasonable" time until I know what the lion, and learned Member's view of a "reasonable" time is.
  MR. CLANCY: When will the Bill dealing with the Board of Agriculture in Ireland be introduced?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am anxious to get the Bill printed, if possible, before Easter, in order that it may be discussed in Ireland during the Easter recess. It will be introduced on the Tuesday—the day on which the House adjourns for the holidays.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he was aware that in addition to the Irish question, an intention existed to raise the important question of the general fiscal policy of the country on the Budget, and whether he would take care, in making arrangements for the Budget, that the latter question was not excluded?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not think that, even if I had the desire, I should have the power to prevent discussion on the Second Reading of the Budget Bill.

  FINANCIAL RELATIONS (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, when appointing the new Royal Commission on the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland, the Government have any objection to the appointment, or intend to appoint on the Commission the Lord Chief Justice of England or Lord Morris, both of whom are eminent English Judges?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am not in a position at the present time to make any announcement as to the names to be proposed for the Commission to inquire into the financial relations.

  PRIME MINISTER (ABSENCE ABROAD).

    MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLrose to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to an urgent matter of definite public importance—namely, the absence from the United Kingdom of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—[Ministerial cries of "Oh, oh!"]—and his consequent inability to have personal communication with his colleagues in the Cabinet and to communicate intelligence to Parliament personally in the critical condition of the Eastern question, and as to the relations of this country with the foreign Powers.
    The pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. Speaker called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen,
    MR. MACNEILLsaid he considered that the justification of his Motion had been amply vindicated by the tone and manner of the questions and the replies to those questions given this afternoon, both by the First Lord of the Treasury and the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He hoped those Gentlemen, who were his opponents, would acquit him of anything like personal discourtesy—[loud Ministerial cries of "No!"]—to the head of the Government, but the issues here were issues of life and death, of peace and war. In the Act of Settlement under which Her Majesty sits on the Throne there was a provision giving to Parliament absolute control over the movements of the Sovereign in order to keep the Sovereign in the country. First of all, he submitted that his absence from the United Kingdom was in itself a disability for the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary to have that personal communication with his colleagues which was all important in the present critical condition of affairs in the east of Europe, and the inconvenience and danger arising from Lord Salisbury's absence were much enhanced by the union in his person of the two great offices of State of Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary. In the constitutional history of the country the Prime Minister was supposed to exercise a control over the Foreign Secretary. The union of the two offices in Lord Salisbury, and his absence abroad, left
    302
    him with no outside influence to control his policy. When Lord Palmerston, in 1853, was dismissed from the office of Foreign Secretary it was because he did not obey the orders of the Prime Minister. Lord Salisbury's absence, he asserted, marked a development of one-man irresponsible power in the Cabinet. [Ministerial cries of "Oh!"] Never before had the two offices been united in one individual. Yet the Foreign Secretary had a power which was vested in no other Minister. The most petty gas or water Bill could be discussed line by line, and could not become law without an Act of Parliament, but what was the power of the Foreign Secretary? Treaties could be entered into, peace could be made, war declared, the most tremendous issue could be decided without the House of Commons having the slightest control over them in their initiation. This country could, so far as Parliament was concerned, be placed at the very tail of Germany, or made subservient to Turkey. It might be said that the Under Secretary was here to give full information. In the strongest manner consistently with Parliamentary courtesy he traversed that statement. Full information was not given by the right hon. Gentleman. He could not really be the personal agent or mouthpiece of the Secretary of State when the latter was out of the kingdom. There ought to be in the House of Commons a statesman constitutionally responsible—
    MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member could not enter into that question.
    MR. MACNEILLdenied that the, Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs was a Minister of the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman was no more responsible for, any of the questions that he answered than the humblest Member of the House; and it was imperative, having regard to the state of Europe, to the condition of affairs in Crete, that there should be some Minister present on whom they; could fix responsibility. He thought that the tone of the answers given showed clearly the absence of that responsibility and a desire not, to give the House information. There should, in short, be someone responsible to the true Parliament of the country for the management of foreign affairs.
    MR. HERBERT LEWISseconded the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put and negatived, amid derisive Ministerial laughter.

MOTION.
  EAST INDIA COMPANY'S OFFICER' SUPERANNUATION.
  Bill to remove doubts as to the power of the Secretary of State in Council of India to grant Superannuation and Compensation Allowances in certain cases to officers on Iris establishment, ordered to be brought in by Lord George Hamilton and Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer; presented accordingly, and Head the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 182.]
  MILITARY WORKS (MONEY) BILL.
  Read the Third time, and passed.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [5th February], "That the Bill be now Read a Second time."
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words:—
  "this House declines to Read a Second time a Bill to consolidate and amend the Laws relating to Public Health in Scotland which does not provide for the rates under the same being levied one-half upon the owners and the other half upon the occupiers of land in burghs as in counties; and which does not permit of the acquisition of land compulsorily for Public Health purposes by an Order of the Local Government Board of Scotland without resort to Parliament."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  On the Question, "That the Bill be Read a Second time,"
  MR. JAMES BRYCEasked why the Bill did not consolidate all the law relating to public health in Scotland. It consolidated, nearly all the law, but the provisions of the Act of 1891 were left out. It would be obviously for the great convenience of those who had to refer to the Bill that there should be a complete consolidation, and that no part of the provisions regarding public health should be left out.
  MR. PARKER SMITHsaid the Bill might more properly be discussed in Committee than in the House, but he desired to raise the question how far it ought to apply to burghs as well as to counties, and what the effect would be of the provisions of the Bill which were applied to burghs as well as to counties. It had been the view of many persons that it would be more convenient to have a separate measure of public health for burghs and counties. It was clear, however, that those who represented burghs would not wish to put any obstacle in the way of the Bill passing, and it was desired to have the benefit of the Bill for burghs and not to delay it by raising any difficulty on the point in the passing of this Bill. There was one difficulty in regard to the application of the Bill to burghs, which was raised in the Memorandum of the burgh officials. He should like to know whether the Lord Advocate was prepared to give his attention to that Memorandum, and whether in Committee they might have the satisfaction of hearing the Lord Advocate on that point. Would the Lord Advocate give his consideration to the question of overlapping in the provisions of the Bill with the provisions of the Burgh Police Act, and the question how far the Act of 1867 applied? In the case of sewers and water the provisions of the Bill would overlap in the burghs the provisions of the Act of 1892; and if the matter was not put into much clearer and more specific form, than at present in the Bill, there would be a great deal of confusion and complication in the future.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,)said that when the discussion took place the other day several hon. Members complained that he had not introduced the Bill by a preliminary statement to explain what was exactly being done. He thought perhaps the best justification of what he did was

  305
  to be found in the Debate which ensued. He thought that a Minister in charge of n Bill who had the advantage of the courtesy of the House in being allowed to choose his own time to speak, was bound not to trouble the House unless he had something In say. If would have been surplusage on his part if he had prefaced this Bill with any long statement, because everything he could have said was said in the Memorandum prefixed to the Bill. As to the material with which the House had to deal, it was clearly explained in the Memorandum prefixed to the Bill, and hon. Members would find in the Bill itself that there was a marginal note opposite each clause showing the source whence it was derived and bow far the old legislation of 1867 had been altered and departed from. As to the reasons why the Government had adopted this or that in the Bill, he thought the hon. Member forgot that the Bill had been discussed at considerable length last year in another place, and that it represented therefore the outcome of very careful consideration before a very competent Committee. He could not doubt therefore that hon. Members would think that the Government had acted wisely in beginning at least with the Public Health Bill as it left the House of Lords last year. The only alteration they had made had cropped up in one or two matters which had occurred in the meantime, like the scandal connected with the interment of a body in Aberdeen. The Government had tried to meet that case; but there was no alteration in the principle of the Bill as it left the House of Lords. In the discussions there were no Second Reading considerations advanced at all. The hon. Member for Banffshire made a speech, not on the Bill before the House, but on a Bill of some years ago, on a matter outside the scope of public health, which was introduced by Mr. Seymour Keay. The hon. Member for Dundee drew special attention to Clause 57, with the object of calling attention to the position in which Dundee was at present with regard to a private Bill which was at present before a Committee upstairs. The hon. Baronet rather indicated in the discussion which arose on this Bill that the Lord Advocate constituted himself responsible for the counties as against the burghs. He disclaimed any such intention. The view of the Govern-
  306
  ment as to Dundee was that it ought not to be allowed in a controversial question to go ahead of the general law. He assured the Member for Dundee that the Government had a perfectly open mind with regard to the clause in question, and they were perfectly willing and anxious that it should be fully discussed when the Bill was sent to Committee. The points rinsed by the hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. Caldwell) also were each and all strictly Committee points. He called attention to the question of a special drainage district. On that he would only say this, that no doubt there was in the Bill a distinction made between burghs and counties. There was at least a reason for that distinction, for, although it was quite right that, if a special drainage scheme was inaugurated in a part of a burgh, the inhabitants in that part should not be called upon to pay for drainage elsewhere, yet that would not he always just in the counties, because a part of a county might be constituted into a special drainage district, and then, by executing some minute works at very small cost, might obtain exemption from the burden in the other parts of the county towards which they ought to contribute. But upon that point, as upon others, the Government had not absolutely made up its mind, and would be very glad to listen to any representations and arguments in Committee. With regard to recreation grounds, the hon. Member forgot that since the passing of the Public Health Act of 1867 there had been a Public Parks Act, and the provisions of that Statute really gave him what he wanted, and it would be unnecessary to go any further in a Bill of this sort. The hon. Member also reverted to the matter of the Standing Joint Committee. Well, the Government did not think it advisable to disturb the settlement made in the Act of 1889, but all these points were Committee points, and not proper subjects for Second Beading discussion. [Cheers.] The only other point was that on which the hon. Member founded his Amendment, which had been put and negatived. He (the Lord Advocate) did not wish to take advantage of that fact, and, in courtesy to the hon. Member, he would say a few words on the subject. It raised the question of rating. In burghs, the option was given to rate

  307
  either Upon the occupier or the owner and the occupier. Again, he must disclaim any intention to stop discussion on that subject in the proper place—the Committee. The hon. Member made a slight slip in stating what the law was, for he said there could be no levying in a burgh half upon the owner and half upon the occupier, unless there was de facto a prison assessment. He could not but think that the hon. Member had not had his attention called to the 63rd section of the Prisons Act of 1877. That Act abolished prison assessment altogether, because it put the maintenance of the prisons on the State Imperial funds. But in Section 63 there was a general provision which said that in any Act of Parliament where an assessment might be levied in the manner of the prison assessment, then it should be legal for the assessing body, whoever they were, to put that assessment half upon the owner and half upon the occupier.
  MR. CALDWELL: I said so.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEreplied that he did not think so, for the hon. Member said that it had been decided by the Court of Session that they could not put the assessment half on the owner and half on the occupier.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question of the division of rates has been disposed of by the decision of the House on the Amendment, and that cannot be discussed again.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid he was sorry that he had digressed, although he might say he had done so knowingly, because he had not wished to take-advantage of the hon. Member in the matter, and had wished to show the hon. Member how the matter stood. The only other Members who spoke were the Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Provand), who echoed what was said by the Member for Lanark, and the Member for Mid Lothian (Sir T. G. Carmichael), whose remarks were of that discursive and complimentary character that they called for acknowledgement rather than reply. Accordingly, he had practically nothing more to say on the Second Heading. The question on the Second Heading was, shall we have an Amendment of the Public Health Law of Scotland? They were all agreed on that, and he could assure hon. Gentlemen that the Government should certainly
  308
  consider the details, as far as they related to public health, as matters of no party moment at all. But they would try to hold an even hand between what sometimes might be the conflicting interests of counties and burghs, and the Member for Partick (Mr. Parker Smith) might rest assured that careful consideration would be given to the memorial to which the hon. Member had referred. He hoped the House would now allow the Bill to go to a Second Reading. [Cheers.]
  MR. J. B. BALFOURsaid he was sure that no one wished to stand between the Mouse and the Second Reading, because he thought the Bill was one which would be very beneficial to Scotland. The provisions of the existing Act were somewhat antiquated in many respects, and he was glad to observe that in this Bill advantage had been taken of the various legislative Measures which had since been passed into law. It was true that this was a Bill rather of detail than of principle, and therefore anything like prolonged Second Heading discussion would be both unnecessary and inappropriate. [Cheers.] At the same time, he hoped his right hon. and learned Friend would not object to what had been done by his hon. Friends who spoke the other night, because it was quite usual, even on such a Bill as this, to call attention to some of the more salient and important points, and he did not understand that anything more was intended by his hon. Friends. [Opposition cheers.] His own object in rising was to ask one or two questions. The Lord Advocate did not propose to repeal the Amending Act of 1891, but he (Mr. Balfour) was sure that his right hon. Friend must know that some difficulty had been experienced in working the provisions of the Act of 1891 along with the provisions of the other Statutes relative to public health. There had come under his own cognisance cases in which it was by no means easy to work in the provisions of that Act with the other statutory provisions dealing with the same subject. He would, therefore, suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, as a matter for consideration in Committee, whether it might not be more convenient to amalgamate the provisions of the Act of 1891 with those of this Bill. Reference had been made by the Member for Partick to a memorial from the burgh officials. There was a great deal in that Memorandum

  309
  that was well worthy of consideration. ["Hear, hear!"] He would not say that he would go the length of having two separate codes—one for the county and one for the burghs—but they should see that there was nothing in this Bill which would stop the power to assess for works done under the Act of 1867, and that there should not be anything like overlapping of powers, because no doubt there had been some difficulty in that respect, but that was a matter for Committee also. ["Hear, hear!"] The Amendment of the Member for Lanark being' rejected, a discussion on the subject of rating' would be inappropriate, therefore he would merely put it to his right hon. Friend whether the question of dividing" the rate in burghs was not very well worthy of consideration. [Opposition cheers.] The whole tendency, not only of recent legislation, but legislation in Scotland for a very considerable time, had been in that direction, as in the case of the Roads and Bridges Act, the School Acts, County Council Act, and Parish Council Act, and all the assessments in counties under this Bill would practically be so divided. There was a proposal in the Bill which seemed to him a very good one. It was that the Roads and Bridges Act should be the standard, instead of the poor-rate standard, and the question would seem to be whether there was any sufficient reason for not extending that principle, which was practically made universal in counties, to burghs also. The assessing power was very considerably increased by this Bill, and that was quite right, because the necessities that had to be provided for had increased. Under the Act of 1867 the rate was limited to 3d., and in the Act of 1891 to 6d. It might hardly be worth while to have division of rates for very small sums like that; but when a shilling rate was assessed for the same purposes, it might well become a matter for consideration. ["Hear, hear!"] He also ventured to point out that some of the improvements on which the larger rate would be leviable would tend, he thought, to enhance the value of property. If that were so, it seemed to be an additional reason for, at all events, giving very careful consideration to the question of whether the whole rate should not be symmetrically divided. He
  310
  also desired to press on the consideration of his right hon. Friend the question of whether the provisions for the taking of land for public purposes under this Bill were not too complicated. The most recent provisions dealing with this matter were all in the direction of simplification. This was the case in the Burgh and Police Act of some four or live years ago, the Parish Councils Act of 1894, and in other Acts. No one would wish property to be taken without giving fair compensation, and the safeguards in these various Acts seemed amply sufficient for the purpose. The long and tedious and extremely complicated provisions in the present Bill, however, would render the acquisition of land for public purposes practically prohibitory.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERONsaid he should he very sorry to do anything to impede the Second Reading of this Bill, which certainly was a step in the right direction. He regretted to see, however, that the Lord Advocate proposed to refer the Bill to the Standing Committee on Law. He would ask him to reconsider his decision in that matter.
  MR. SPEAKERreminded the hon. Member that this was not the time for discussing that question.
  SIR C. CAMERONsaid he only wished to point out that, if the course proposed by the Lord Advocate was persisted in, a very large number of hon. Members for Scotland would have no opportunity whatever of taking part in the Committee discussions.
  Bill read a Second time.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE*THE LORD ADVOCATE moved "That the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Law, Etc.,"
  DR. FARQUARSON*DR. FARQUARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.) moved, as an Amendment, to leave out the words, "the Standing Committee on Law, Etc.," in order to add instead thereof the words
  "a Committee consisting of all the Members representing Scottish constituencies, together wit It Fifteen other Members to he nominated by the Committee of Selection."
  This Bill, he said, affected in the most minute and complicated way every constituency in Scotland, and therefore he held that every Member for every constituency in Scotland had a, right to ex-press his opinions in Committee upon

  311
  the details of the Bill. He said it was right and proper that this Bill should not be discussed at any very great length on the Second Reading, because he thought they were all agreed on the general principle. They all admitted that a Bill of this kind was very much needed, and he thought they might, congratulate the Lord Advocate and the Government on having brought it in. But if this Bill was approved in general principle it was essentially a Bill of detail which must be carefully and anxiously examined, either in Committee or otherwise. Every Scotch Member should have the right to criticise this Bill in detail. That, might be done in Committee of the whole House; but the Bill was, in his opinion, far too technical in its character to be argued in that way. Another course was that proposed by the Lord Advocate, but he would point out that as at present constituted there were only eight Scotch Members of the Standing Committee on Law, and even with the 15 added afterwards by the Committee of Selection there would be only 23 Scotch Members out of 72. Therefore, it was quite plain that a great many Members, perhaps those most deeply interested in this question, and those who had the right to discuss it, would be excluded from any opportunity of doing so. He thought the consideration of a Bill of this kind—long, elaborate, and bristling with intricate and difficult details—would be a great undertaking for the Standing Committee on Law. No time would be saved by the adoption of this course, because the 55 or 56 Members who had been excluded from the Committee's deliberartions would naturally feel it their duty, in the interests of their constituents, to renew the discussions at great length when the Bill came downstairs again. Then there was the proposal which he made in the Amendment he had moved. There were several reasons in favour of that course. The first was the great and admitted success of the two cases in which they had had this Grand Scotch Committee working upstairs. Another argument was that this Bill affected, in the most minute and complicated way, every constituency in Scotland; and therefore, he claimed that every Member for every constituency in Scotland had the right to express his opinion upon it. It was necessary to watch Bills of this
  312
  class very carefully in Committee, with complete and intimate local knowledge. It was unnecessary for him to use many arguments in favour of the principle for which he was now contending, namely, that Scotch Members should be given a small Measure of Home Rule in the shape of a Committee upstairs, where they could Debate deliberately and harmoniously the principles and practices which they themselves understood. He remembered how useful on a previous occasion the 15 added Members were. Those Gentlemen gave the Scotch Members the benefit of their experience, but he thought they in return were benefited by witnessing the practical and admirable way in which Scotch men could do their business when they did it in their own fashion. Perhaps it would have been better if he had moved that a Scotch Grand Committee should be established, to which all Scotch Bills should be referred, but he thought that the Select Committee he suggested was sufficient for the purpose of considering this one particular and individual Measure. He could hardly believe it would be contended there would be a majority of Scotch Members hostile to the Government. That might be so, but he thought he was justified in saying that none of his colleagues would desire to Debate a Bill of this kind from a Party standpoint. But if the argument he had mentioned were used he would be quite willing that the whole of the 15 added Members should be Tories, so that the Government should have the majority. He wanted to make this a good Bill, and in order to give every Scotch Member an opportunity of debating it, he moved the Amendment which stood in his name.
  MR. J. W. CROMBIEsaid he, had always made it a point not to do anything to unnecessarily delay the progress of business. Because he agreed with the principle of the Bill, he abstained from saying anything on the Second Reading. How had his virtue been rewarded? That in all probability he would have no opportunity whatever of discussing some important details of the Bill in which his constituents were interested. When, they were treated thus by the Government it was rather apt to upset one's ideas of being virtuous in his conduct in the House. He had been told by Members older than himself that they

  313
  could not get anything unless they could show that they kept business back. The proposal of the Lord Advocate was to submit this Measure to the Grand Committee on Law. That Committee consisted of 68 Members, eight of whom were Scotchmen. He did not wish to say anything disparaging of the 60 English Members, but was it possible for them to grasp with ease the intricate details of a Scotch Bill, which taxed all the abilities of Scotch representatives. His hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire had suggested that the Bill would come before the House again on Report. But even then, there would not be an opportunity of discussing some important details of the Bill. One question which greatly interested the people of Scotland was that of rating. He understood that under the Rules of the House the question of rating could not he brought up on Report. For these reason he heartily supported the Amendment.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid he was unable to accept the Amendment, and he could not help thinking that his hon. Friend had proposed it under a misapprehension of what was and what was not possible according to the forms of the House. The Amendment was to send the Bill to a Committee consisting of Scotch Members, with 15 Members aided. The hon. Member admitted that this was a Measure of such complicated details that it was quite unfitted for consideration by a Committee of the whole House. But the course which he proposed would send the Bill to a Committee of the whole House. He asked, as a point of order, whether it was possible under this Motion to set up a Scotch Standing Committee.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Committee proposed by the Amendment is a Select Committee.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid it was a matter of elementary knowledge that when a Bill went to a Select Committee it came back to the Committee of the whole House. Therefore, was it a practical proposal that the Bill should be first sent to a Committee composed of the Scotch Members with fifteen Members added, and then come back to the Committee of the whole House? There was no such thing in existence as a Scotch Grand Committee. In 1894 a Scotch Grand Committee was set up and the Bill which was referred to it was exempted
  314
  from the Committee stage of the House. That was not possible in this case. There was a good precedent for sending this Bill to the Grand Committee in Law. He had been a member of that Committee for some years, and he well remembered that the Irish Public Health Bill was most satisfactorily discussed by that Committee, as he had no doubt this Bill would be. No doubt the Committee of Selection would lake care that the added Members were nearly all, if not all, Scotchmen. As to the question of rating, if the hon. Member for Kincardineshire was not one of the added Members, and if the Grand Committee on Law did not settle the question of rating in a way which commended itself to him, he could move that the Bill be recommitted, and thus again raise the point. For these reasons he could not see his way to agree to the Amendment.
  MR. CALDAVELLsaid that Lord Advocate Macdonald proposed, in regard to the Burgh Police Bill, a, very sensible plan, which was covered by this very Amendment.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: Lord Advocate Macdonald made that proposition in 1886, and the Burgh Police Bill passed in 1892. We want this to pass speedily.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that the Bill which was passed into law was really the Bill which was passed by a Select Committee of the House. That Bill was passed through the House after one day's discussion, and remitted to a Select Committee consisting of all the Scotch Members. At least, every Scotch Member who desired was on that Committee. The Bill was carefully considered by the Select Committee. It was a good many days in Committee, and it was discussed in a manner that gave satisfaction to the Scotch Members on both sides. It was not passed; but the reason was that the House was going in the next Session to engage in dealing with local government, and they therefore considered it undesirable to deal with a Bill which might be modified in the following Session. In 1892 a Bill was brought in which was practically accepted by all the Scotch Members. It. was all very well to say that if this Bill was committed to a Select Committee it would still have to pass through, the Committee of the House. They had had a Bill to-day the size of this, and what was

  315
  the result? Because they gave a fair opportunity to every Scotch Member the Scotch Members accepted it, and the Bill passed through Committee and the Report stage in one sitting. That would be the result probably if this Bill were sent to a Select Committee. Every Scotch Member would know that he had the opportunity of being heard, but if the Bill was sent to the Standing Committee they would have a vast majority of English Members on it. Fifteen oilier Members would be added, and Members from the other side, and six Members from that side, of whom two must be Irish Members. [Cries of "No!"] Oh, yes. He had no doubt the Irish Members would insist on their rights. He had never known them not to claim their rights. [Lauhter.] Thus they would have a, Bill which only concerned Scotland dealt, with by a Committee the great majority of which would be English and Irish Members. Was that fair, that the Scotch Members should practically have no voice in the matter? The Government might drive the Bill to the Standing Committee, but they would find it a different thing to pass it into law after. If the Bill were forced in that way he wished the Lord Advocate much joy when he came to the Report stage on a Bill with 175 clauses. But did they think they could drive a Bill like this through, in opposition to the wishes of the people of Scotland? Hon. Members were treating this as a Home Rule matter, but there was no Home Rule about it. There was nothing for the Government to be afraid of. There was no party advantage with the matter at all. It was simply whether the Scotch Members were to be, given a hearing on a Bill dealing with the public health of Scotland. ["Hear, hear!"]
  SIR WILLIAM PRIESTLEYsaid, there were two or three points to be kept in view in reference to this Commit tee. In the first place, it should not be on party lines; in the second place, the Committee should not be too large; and lastly, it should comprise those who knew something of the subject. If such men as his hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeen, or his hon. Friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow, who were conversant with matters concerning health were likely to be excluded, there might be some ground for
  316
  this contention of his hon. Friend opposite, but he thought the Committee of Selection might be trusted to nominate suitable Members, and the House would do well, therefore, to accept the proposal of the Lord Advocate.
  SIR HENRY CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the hon. Member had laid down one or two rules for their guidance. First, the Committee was not to be too large; but he did not seem to be aware that the Committee suggested by his hon. Friend would not be so large as the Committee suggested by the Lord Advocate. Then he said they should take care that the Committee comprised those who knew something of the subject; but this Bill affected not merely technical experts, but the great mass of the people. While he should be glad to see the hon. Member on the Committee, be had a certain suspicion of technical information. For these reasons they wished to see the Bill in one form or other referred to a Committee upon which every Scotch Member would have an opportunity of expressing his opinion. There was nothing he and his Friends desired but to see the Bill pass into law, and, further, they wished to see it passed improved. This being a matter which went home to the daily interest, health, and comfort of the people at large, it was eminently a question which ought not to be dealt with by a restricted number of the representatives of Scotland. He did not know that 15 Members, as proposed by his hon. Friend, was precisely the number that should be added. When on a previous occasion a Bill of this character was referred with great advantage to a Committee of all the Scotch Members, the House added such a number of Members as made the Committee a reflex of the distribution of parties in the House, and whatever number was added now it would certainly not be more than 15, because the Scotch Members were now more equally divided in politics. ["Hear, hear!"] The principal precedent was the Bill for the establishment of Parish Councils. That was generally considered a non-contentious Bill, though he admitted there were many points in that Bill which closely approached a political character; but every point in connection with that Bill was discussed with the greatest desire to

  317
  avoid political differences, and the divisions on Amendments did not follow party lines, but represented the honest opinions of individual Members. [Ministerial laughter.] The crack of the party whip was not heard, and the result was an harmonious settlement of a great and difficult question. ["Hear, hear!"] This Bill was far more completely exempt from anything like a suspicion of party feeling. What in the world could politics have to do with contagious diseases, public nuisances, and questions of that kind; ["Hear, hear!"] Therefore, he would have thought this was an occasion when they might freely adopt the precedent established in the last Parliament. The Lord Advocate had taken the point, which he thought was little more than a formal one, that on the former occasion a special Grand Committee was set up. It was true that such a reference as his hon. Friend advocated did not supersede the consideration of the Bill in Committee of the whole House; but did the right hon. Gentleman suppose that when all the Scotch Members had spent days and perhaps weeks, over the details of the Bill, there would be any or much discussion in Committee of the whole House? In such circumstances that stage would be little more than a matter of form. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that that monument of legal ingenuity, the Burgh Police Act, passed the House with the greatest ease, although it had to encounter the full danger of the Committee stage; and the same thing would happen to this Bill if the course proposed by his hon. Friend were adopted. ["Hear, hear!"] Seeing that there was only this one Bill relating to Scotland before the House this year, he did not see that there would be much advantage, in setting up a special Grand Committee. The Government would gain in more ways than one by adopting his hon. Friend's suggestion. In the first place, it was only just and right that the representatives of the people of Scotland should have ample opportunity of making the Bill conform to their views and needs, and in the second place, the time of the Government would be saved; for if the Bill was not referred to a Committee in which all the Scotch Members would have an opportunity of bringing their views to bear, the right hon. Gentleman might be perfectly certain that on
  318
  the Report stage a good many Members would have a good deal to say. He did not propose to open the question of referring a Bill which could rightly be called political or contentious to a Committee of this sort; but in the case of a Bill such as this, which was of a purely non-contentious character, it would be a great advantage to adopt the course proposed. He regretted that the Lord Advocate had refused to consider this proposal. If the Government had their way the Bill would go to the Standing Committee on Law, on which very few Scotch Members could sit, and all the other Scotch Members would be excluded from all power of taking part in its discussion. Therefore not only would the Bill be subjected to the danger of elaborate discussion in the House—and a discussion not nearly so effectual as that which would take place in Committee—but there would also remain among those affected by the Bill a feeling of regret and disappointment, because their interests had not been considered. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. T. F. HALSEYsaid that in plain English this was a proposal to revise the Grand Committee established in the last Parliament after many days of contentious debate. As he was, perhaps, in the absence of his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University, the oldest Member of the Committee of Selection, he would like to say a word on the subject. The Committee of Selection were, of course, ready to discharge to the best of their ability every duty the House placed upon them, and he ventured to think that up to the present they had discharged their duties to the satisfaction of the House—["hear, hear!"]—but at the same time he thought they had a right to ask that if this Motion was carried they should have some more definite instructions from the House as to the course to be adopted. They endeavoured to make these two Grand Committees microcosms of the House, so that the exact condition of Parties might be reflected in them. But they could not make a Grand Committee consisting of all the Scotch Members with 15 others a microcosm of the House. The only way would be to select the whole of those 15 Members from one side of the House, but that would be a very invidious tiling to do. The matter would be further complicated because, if they were

  319
  to pursue that course, the Irish question in regard to such matters would at once be raised. It appeared to him that there was hardly any necessity at all for this Motion. He could assure his hon. Friend the Member for Kincardineshire that if the Motion were not carried he would not be shut out, for he would be one of the first Members to be selected as an expert. The practice of the Committee of Selection in regard to Select Committees had been to select any Members whose names were on the back of the Bill to be considered, who showed any interest in the question by having taken part in the Debates, or who were acquainted with the subject, without reference to the side of the House on which they sat. He ventured to think the House would do well to refer this Bill in the usual manner to the Grand Committee cm Law, but if the House should decide to accept the Motion of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire he urged, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, that they should give some definite instructions to the Committee of Selection as to the principles on which they should go in choosing the proposed 15 Members.
  MR. AUGUSTINE BIRRELLsaid the only reason he rose to take part in the Debate was in order to curry favour with the Committee of Selection. [Laughter.] It seemed that no Scotch Member had got the least chance of being put upon this Select Committee unless he took part in the Debates.
  MR. HALSEYsaid the hon. Member was entirely mistaken, and he could venture to promise the hon. Member that in all probability he would be put on the Committee.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid that in that case he had already acomplished what he had had in view. [Laughter.] He congratulated the Committee of Selection for the intelligence they displayed in discharging a solemn public function. He thought that Scotchmen would prefer that questions of this kind should be submitted to all the Scotch Members—["hear, hear!"]—instead of their being dealt with in the random, sporadic, and very childish mode which had been described by the hon. Member. He must say he was utterly surprised at the course taken by the Lord Advocate. A number of them had, in the innocence of their hearts, entered into obligations to
  320
  County Councils, medical authorities, and other persons interested in their constituencies, to put down and support Amendments when this subject came into Committee, and they had been conjured by them not in any way to delay the Second Reading of this great Bill, in order that at the earliest moment it might come under the discussion of all the persons interested. Now they found that there would not be that opportunity for discussing the matter which they had expected. The Bill was to be referred to the Standing Committee on Law, which was a more unwieldly body than would be a Select Committee composed of all the Scotch Members. This Bill had undergone every fortune possible to a Bill except that of being passed, and had been mentioned, he believed, in 11 Queen's Speeches. Now that they had a good opportunity of putting on the Statute-book this Session a Bill which Scotland had for years demanded, their hopes were in a fair way of being frustrated by the action of the executive officer in charge of the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. R. G. WEBSTERsaid he had been a Member of the Committee on the Burgh Police (Scotland) Bill, and he knew that on that Committee the English Members had to coach themselves up in the very difficult questions they had to consider, which it was difficult for an Englishman to grasp. He did not think that during the two or three years that that Bill was in Committee they had any Party votes. He ventured to urge on the Lord Advocate that it would be desirable to send the present Bill to a Committee composed of Scotchmen, instead of to the Grand Committee on Law.
  MR. T. R. BUCHANANsaid they were much indebted to the hon. Member for the support which he had given them, especially as the hon. Member had had experience of the working of a similar Committee to that which the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire wished to set up. This Motion proposed to set up a Committee upon which all Scotch Members would have seats, with the addition of 15 Members of other nationalities. The great merit of such a proposal was that it secured that the Bill would be considered by those who knew about it, and those

  321
  who cared about it, and it would be a far more competent body to deal with the Measure than the Grand Committee on Law. They had heard about the non-party character of that body, with which they all agreed. They were all agreed also that the Bill was not a Bill of principles but a Bill of details. The great point, however, was that the Committee which was to consider this Bill should be composed of Members who knew something about the Bill, and who were interested in the Bill; and he denied that the Grand Committee on Law, even with the addition of 15 Members, whom he supposed would be all Scotch Members, could be described as a body of that character. The Grand Committee on Law consisted of 68 members, eight of whom were Scotch Members. Who were those eight? Mr. Asquith, Mr. J. B. Balfour, Sir Robert Finlay, Mr. Haldane, Mr. John Morley, Mr. Graham Murray, Sir Robert Reid, and Mr. Parker Smith. Those were amongst the ablest of the Scotch, Members; but it would be observed that six out of the eight sat on the two Front Benches; and he might be permitted to say that his hon. Friends the Members for Haddington (Mr. Haldane) and Particle (Mr. Parker Smith) were also distinguished in having Front Bench minds. [Laughter.] Did those eight Members at all fairly represent the character of the Scotch Members of the House? Or could even the addition of 15 other Scotch Members so dilute the Scotch contingent on the Committee as to make it a lair representation of the Scotch representation in the House? They would only have 23 Scotch Members out of 83, or only a quarter of the Scotch Members on the Committee, and they could not expect that the consideration of the details of the Bill, affecting town and country alike, by such a Committee would give satisfaction. He would earnestly urge upon the Government, if they wanted the Bill to be a satisfactory piece of legislation and to bring Scotch public health legislation up to a proper standard, to send the Bill for consideration to Members who cared about it, and who knew about it, and thus have at least one piece of legislation that would give some satisfaction to the people of Scotland.
  MR. PARKER SMITHsaid the most important point at
  322
  issue in the formation of those Committees was the point that they ought to be a microcosm of the House at large. It was for that point they fought most bitterly in the last Parliament, with the result that 15 Members were added to the Grand Committee on Law, so as to make it as representative as possible of the House of Commons. He contended that the Committee now proposed to be appointed would not be a microcosm of the House; and while, no doubt, the main points of the Bill would be divided on on non-Party lines, no Minister would care to accept the responsibility of steering the Bill through Committee unless he had a majority on whom he could rely on a pinch. There was a question as to how many Scotch Members would appear on the Grand Committee on Law. There were in the first place eight Scotch Members on the Committee, and in the next place there were 15 to be added to it, who probably would all be Scotch Members. But there was a further possibility. It was a common thing for an hon. Gentleman who was interested in a particular Bill before a Standing Committee to effect an exchange with a friend who was a member of the Committee and had a seat on the same side of the House, and he did not think in the case of this Bill Scotch Members would have much difficult in finding English friends who would be glad to give their places on the Committee to them. When the question of setting up a satisfactory Scotch Standing Committee was discussed before it war, suggested that there should be a Committee, limiting it to a fixed number, say 80, Laying down, as the first principle that it should be a microcosm of the House, and that, subject to that principle, as many Scotch Members as possible were to be added to it. If there were a Committee of 80 it would not be possible to put on all the Scotch Members and keep the Committee a microcosm of the House; But they could certainly put on all the Scotch Members on the other side who wished to take part in the discussion on the Bill, and still keep the Committee a microcosm of the House. Why should all Scotch Members be included on the Committee? What share would the right hon. Member for Montrose Burghs take in the discussion of the Scotch Public Health Bill?
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid that, for about ten years he had been trying to get some Scotch Committee appointed to which all Bills relating to Scotland might be referred. The present was a much more limited and moderate proposal. The case which had arisen was one of the extreme examples of the absurdity of the present practice of the House. This Bill was admittedly uncontroversial; there was no Party capital to be made out of it; it was exceptionally important to Scotland; it did not affect any other part of the United Kingdom; it was necessarily unintelligible to Englishmen; and there were a large number of Scotch Members eminently qualified and anxious to deal with the Measure. Yet the Government refused to submit the Bill to the willing Members, and sent it to a high and dry Standing Committee on Law, on which there were only eight Scotch Members, and to which only 15 more could be added. This was simply a result of the prejudices of the House springing from the recent Home Rule controversy. The Lord Advocate had correctly pointed out that if this Bill were sent to a Committee of Scotch, Members it would have to come back to the House as from a Select Committee. But that would be no obstacle to the passage of the Bill. If the Scotch Members had a fair chance of putting their views before the Committee, the Government would have no further trouble. Scotch Members did not obstruct Scotch Bills; and there was not a Scotch Member on the Opposition side of the House who did not wish the Bill to pass into law. ["Hear, hear!"] But he objected altogether to the Bill being referred to the Standing Committee on Law with only 23 Scotch Members out of 62, and he should divide the House on that point, ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. C. B. RENSHAWsaid that in the course of the consideration of this Bill, subjects leading to considerable contention might be introduced, and it was essential that the Government should have upon the Committee the full majority to which they were entitled. As to referring the Bill to the Standing Committee on Law, he approved of the proposal. It was desirable, not only to have Members qualified by technical knowledge on the Committee, but also
  324
  Members of legal experience, who could advise the Committee on questions of the administration of the Public Health Acts of 1875 and 1891. Ominous threats had been uttered by hon. Gentlemen opposite as to what would happen when the Bill came back from the Committee; but he believed that the common sense which predominated among Scotch Members dealing with Scotch legislation would prevail in this case. As all Scotch Members were anxious to have the Bill, lie believed that they would agree to help its progress.
  MR. J. G. HOLBURNsaid that the assistance not only of legal experts, but also of those who had practical experience of the administration of the Public Health Acts, would be necessary in discussing this Bill. He hoped that nothing would be done by any Scotch Member to endanger the passing of the Bill, but that the opportunity of putting the Public Health Law of Scotland on a sound and satisfactory basis would be seized. It was essential, however, that every Scotch Member should have a chance of considering the Bill in Committee. Even those Members who had no special knowledge of their own would be able to contribute to the discussion the suggestions of their localities in regard to the particular points on which those localities had found difficulty. He himself had a strong desire to be on the Committee to which the Bill was to be referred; because he had had many years' experience as the Convener of a Public Health Committee. He knew the difficulties which beset localities under the present law. He hoped this Measure would not be considered in any Party spirit by the Scotch Members; and that they would put the Public Health of their country before any consideration of Party advantage.
  MR. LEONARD COURTNEYsaid he was conscious of the temerity of an Englishman intruding in this Debate. But one or two references had been made to the conduct of a similar discussion a few years ago, and he ventured on that account to intrude. His hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeen said he had recanted from the position he took up in 1894. He believed his hon. Friend was under a mistake. The position he took up in 1894

  325
  was this. Sir George Trevelyan proposed to set up a Standing Scottish Committee composed of all the Scotch Members. He himself ventured to insist, following the lead of the present Leader of the House, on the prime necessity for making every Standing Committee a reflection of the balance of Parties in the House. It would be impossible to conduct business on any other arrangement than that. He said in 1894 that if they made their Grand Committees correspond with the balance of Parties in the House, then he should be quite ready to consent to putting on the Committee as many Scotch Members as could be put upon it. But when a change was made in 1894 in the direction he indicated, in the composition of the Committee, he at once ceased his opposition. That was not a recantation. In considering the proposal now before them they must remember it would be a precedent. They could not with reference to one section of the House adopt a precedent which I hey were not prepared to follow with respect to other sections. But if they adopted the principle of making the Grand Committee correspond to the balance of Parties in the House, then they could freely go on with that principle in reference to other parts of the kingdom. They had had no expression of opinion from the Government of the real merits of the controversy. As the Lord Advocate had said, if they referred the Bill to a Select Committee as proposed, the Bill would come back to be considered again in Committee of the whole House. But if they referred the Bill to a Standing Committee, they would be saved from the consideration of it in Committee of the whole House. If they had a Standing Committee of 81 Members, and if the Committee were divided according to the balance of Parties, they would have 54 Members from the Government side and 27 from the Opposition side. The latter might be all Scotch Members, while the 54 would include almost every Scotch Member, and would still leave a balance of legal and expert persons sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the hon. Member for Renfrew and also the desires of the Scotch Members opposite. Not everyone desired to be on the Committee, and among the number he believed the hon. Member for West Fife.
  MR. BIRRELL: I did not express any opinion at all. I rose in order to ingratiate myself with the Committee. [Laughter.]
  MR. COURTNEY: I understood my him. Friend rose to ingratiate himself so that they should not choose him. [Laughter.]
  MR. BIRRELL: If you so understood, you quite misconceived my sense of public duty. [Renewed laughter.]
  MR. COURTNEY, resuming, said that, at any rate, there were Scotch Members who did not desire to be on the Committee. He suspected his right hon. Friend the Member for Mont rose was one of them. [Several Hon. MEMBERS: "He is one now."] He was not on the Committee he himself had in contemplation. This was not a Party matter, and they might come to an agreement. He appealed to the Leader of the House not to shut the door to an agreement. It was of the greatest possible importance in respect of the conduct of affairs in the House that they should be able to organise Grand Committees which would satisfactorily take business from the House itself, and if they could do that with respect to local Bills, they would be going a great way to facilitate the transaction of business. This was a happy way of introducing the principle once for all of having a Standing' Scotch Committee. If they assented to the principle that such a Committee should be set up they would not only get this Bill passed through, but it would have a good effect in saving the time of the House in future, through the organisation of machinery which would be most useful in regard to other Bills. What was the difficulty of doing it? It offered no inconvenient precedent. The Government of the day would always have command of the Committee, and they might very well start an experiment in connect ion with this Bill which would be most fruitful in the future. He had observed that the Scotch Members who had spoken had not spoken with enthusiasm of the Standing Committee on Law. He thought there were other Scotch Members, without respect to the part of the House in which they sat, who would concede that the adoption of a Scotch Grand Committee on the principle he had laid down would be very satisfactory to them, not only in reference to this Bill, but to the carrying

  327
  through the House of other Bills dealing with Scotch matters. ["Hear, hear!"]
  Question put, "That the words 'the Standing Committee on Law, etc' stand part of the Question."—The House divided:—Ayes, 193; Noes, 95.—(Division List, No. 155.)
  Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Law, Etc.

  PUBLIC OFFICES (WHITEHALL) SITE BILL.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's)*THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's) moved the Second Reading of this Bill, the purpose of which was, he said, to acquire the Carrington House site in Whitehall for the purpose of the erection of a War Office. The building space thus afforded would more than accommodate the War Office, but it was not more than sufficient to provide for extensions which might be necessary in a few years. The Bill was based on the unanimous Report of a Select Committee which sat last year to consider the question of sites for public offices. The freehold of the property was vested in the Crown, but it would be necessary to purchase the site from, the Commissioners of Woods, which would make no difference from the taxpayers' point of view, because revenue would be obtained, instead of from the Consolidated Fund, from the land revenues of the Crown, which were administered by the Office of Woods. So far as he knew, the Bill was approved on all sides of the House.
  MR. T. LOUGHdesired to have further information about the scheme, and particularly as to what offices were to be built upon the site, what was to be the total cost, and whether it was intended to provide for the Board of Trade, which, though one of the most important Departments of Government, was at present very inadequately housed. The House ought to know what was the whole programme of the Government in this matter.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISremarked that the right hon. Gentleman had said that the acquisition of this property would
  328
  practically make no difference to the taxpayers. He should like to know whether the Commissioners of Woods and Forests at the present time received any rents in respect of the property under discussion. If they knew this, they could then ascertain, as a matter of fact, how much these buildings were to cost the nation. Again, the tenants on the property ought to receive some consideration, because for the last 20 years they had been under notices of various kinds, and they never had any idea of what was going to become of the property. He considered that Amendments ought to be moved providing that the interests of the tenants should receive due consideration.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIENwished to know what the buildings were going to cost, and what proportion Ireland would have to bear. He had made up his mind that, so far as he could help it, the Government should not get any Bill for erecting buildings, however desirable from the British point of view, in London to the cost of which Ireland would have to contribute, without knowing how much Ireland was to contribute, and whether she was to be treated as a separate entity or as a county of England in these matters. The Government had made up their minds that they wanted time to consider the matter of Imperial contributions, and they had decided to appoint a Commission to investigate the question of the expenditure—
  MR. SPEAKER: The remarks of the hon. Member are out of order.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIENsaid his point was that he objected to any further expenditure towards which Ireland had to contribute without knowing what benefit she was to derive from it. The Government had appointed a Commission to inquire into the whole question of Imperial contributions (although he submitted they had full knowledge on the subject already), and until that investigation had taken place he considered the Government should withdraw this Bill.
  MR. JAMES DALYsupported the hon. Member for Kilkenny in opposing any further stages of this Bill at the present time. He objected to Irishmen having to contribute to the beautifying of the streets of London when the money could be much better spent on the hovels in the poor parts of Ireland. He should also like to know whether

  329
  or not there were to be any evictions in this case, and, if so, what compensation was to be paid the tenants so evicted?
  MR. JOHN BURNS, as a member of the Sites Committee, supported the remarks of the First Commissioner of Works, and assured the hon. Member for Monaghan that there were to be no evictions. It must be admitted that the present location and relation, both administrative and architecturally, of all their Government Departments in or near that House was a reproach to the Government of this country, and had long been an administrative scandal. The House of Commons had frequently expressed a desire that the block of buildings in Parliament Street should be swept away altogether, and in the interest of the public traffic, and to some extent to carry out the pledge given to London, that at the same time the obstruction to Parliament Street should be removed. Another matter the Committee had to consider was, how they could improve the connection between administrative centres, the different portions of which were spread over a number of buildings not closely connected with each other. The Committee came to the conclusion that, for administrative and economical reasons, the Admiralty and all its buildings should be located on or near where the new Admiralty buildings had been recently erected, and where another wing was in the course of erection. They had to choose whether the War Office should occupy the other side of the Parade quadrangle. He was in favour of that view, but he was beaten by the Committee, and he loyally fell in with the defeat he sustained. The decision of the Committee was, that, failing the new War Office, which was necessary, being placed opposite the new Admiralty buildings, the War Office should be transferred to the Carrington House site. Not a single Member of the House had raised any objection to the site of the new War Office, either on the ground of location or relation to the Admiralty buildings now being erected, and he ventured to say that, failing the eviction of the Treasury—to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would strongly object—the Carrington House site was the next best site they could have for housing the War Office. The Committee decided that the Admiralty buildings should be completed
  330
  where they were now being located; that the War Office should be transferred from Pall Mall, where it was insufficiently and improperly housed, to the Carrington House site, which would secure that that particular Department should be concentrated in one building. Then the question arose as to what should be done with the Board of Trade. The Committee were roughly of opinion that when the Parliament Street block was removed, they ought to have a block of Government buildings from the corner of Parliament Street and George Street, running so far down as nearly to Storey's Gate, or on that part of the land that the Government had either a whole or joint interest in. He believed that if they carried out that rough scheme, the details of which the Committee to be appointed would thrash nut, they would have a clear view from Trafalgar Square to the House of Commons, and the War Office would be properly housed. Then they would be able to properly group the Board of Trade, the Irish Office, and the Labour Department of the Board of Agriculture in buildings which would be compact and beautiful in external appearance. He expected to hear the Irish Members object to the government and administration of Ireland from the mean and disgraceful Irish Office in which its business was now transacted. The Committee had been compelled to consider this accommodation, but they could not do more than they did. This Bill was brought in as a preliminary instalment in order to prevent money from being wasted, and in order to give to the Government offices that accommodation they had so long demanded.
  MR. J. J. CLANCYthought that the hon. Member who had spoken last was a Scotsman.
  MR. BURNS: No: I have the honour to be a Londoner. [Laughter.]
  MR. CLANCYsaid, at any rate, the hon. Member was of Scottish descent, though he had discussed the question from the point of view of London. He could not see any question from the point of view of London, and he refused to discuss any question either from the point of view of London, or of England, or even from the point of view of the Empire. He discussed this question entirety from the point of view of Ireland. He did not

  331
  cave whether the Irish Office was grouped or whether or not it existed. He wished it were abolished from the face of the earth and the Government that sustained it. Who was going to pay for this land? Was Ireland to help in paying it? Ireland had no interest in buying this land or in building these offices, or in carrying out the work after they were built. It was said that the buildings were necessary for the Army. Irishmen did no want the Army. What Ireland wanted was to be protected from the British Army; therefore, he did not see why Ire-laud should be asked to contribute anything at all. This was an Imperial charge, and he should like to know in what column of the Treasury Return would the expense appear? Every penny spent would go into the pockets of Englishmen. Would the Government put down to the account of England alone the cost that would be incurred by the passing of the Bill, or would they charge the Empire, and thereby cheat Ireland of so much money? This was a, very vital matter. Every Irish Member who had any regard for the material interests of his constituency ought to oppose every Bill by every means in his power which proposed to add to the existing burdens of Ireland.
  MR. W. ALLANsaid he looked at this question from a business point of view. The question was, "Are the offices required?" [Mr. CLANCY: "Not by Ireland!"] The bonds between the countries were not yet broken, and as things were the hon. Member ought to know that all portions of the United Kingdom must bear their share of this expense. [Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN: "We bear too much!"] The protest of the hon. Member was not altogether sound. The money would not go into the pockets of Englishmen, for a large amount of Irish labour would be employed. The First Commissioner had overlooked one grand site in connection with his scheme. A more contemptible set of offices for Government to do its work in he did not think existed; and he asked why the right hon. Gentleman should not continue the present Privy Council buildings, abolish the antiquated buildings called the Scotch Office and the Horse Guards, continuing the site of the Government offices in one group right up to Charing Cross, instead of scattering them.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid Irish Members were justified in criticising this Bill because Ireland was interested in it to the extent of £45,000. For the last three days the House had been occupied in discussing the Financial Relations of Great Britain and Ireland, and during the Debate it was shown that Ireland contributed an eleventh of Imperial taxation. The fourth clause of the Bill sanctioned a, charge on the Consolidated Fund of £500,000, of which Ireland would supply £45,000. He protested against Irish money being devoted to the service of the War Office, a department from the administration of winch his country derived no advantage. So far as he could understand the land to be appropriated for this site was the property of Her Majesty, and it seemed to him an extraordinary thing that the State should pay Her Majesty half a million of money for this purpose. The hon. Member for Battersea informed him that in the sense in which Her Majesty's title was used the Government was meant, and if that was so it would seem to be but a transfer of the money from one Government pocket to another. But perhaps Her Majesty did get some substantial sum from the amount. He did not wish to speak with any disrespect of the Sovereign, but he did not think that anyone could bring forward an instance in which Her Majesty had parted with property for the benefit of the State without reasonable consideration. This building was to be raised by Englishmen in England for English purposes, and he joined in the protest of his hon. Friend the Member for North Dublin against a large contribution being demanded from Ireland for such a, purpose. Ireland received no quid pro quo, and no cause had been shown why Ireland should be required to pay £45,000 for a purpose in which she had no shadow of interest. he associated himself with the protest of his hon. Friend. It had been suggested that Irish labourers would find employment in the building', and he hoped it might be so, but the First Commissioner would give no guarantee of the kind.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid the question of what employment would be given on the building had nothing to do with the purchase of the site.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLhoped a Division would be taken against the Bill.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid be would, with the permission of the House, answer one or two questions which had been put to him. The hon. Member for Islington asked as to the whole scheme. The Bill, of course, dealt only with the War Office, a part of the scheme considered by the Committee last year. It was proposed eventually to deal with the whole of the offices not now properly housed. The building for the Board of Trade, the Education Department, and the extension of the Local Government Hoard would occupy the site in Great George Street, and certain smaller offices would be in Downing Street. But the principal Department to house was the War Office, and the Committee decided unanimously that this was the only site large enough. The hon. Member for Battersea had expressed a preference for the Horse Guards Parade site, but it was considered that did not afford space enough now and for future extension, and the idea of utilizing that site was reluctantly abandoned. They were guided by the Reports of various Committees which had considered the subject in years past, and all recommended that the War Office should be placed, if not under the same roof, then as near as possible to the Admiralty. The question of tenants' compensation did not arise at all. The price of the land and contingent interests was mentioned in the Bill as under £300,000. The hon. Member for North Dublin asked under what column in the Treasury Accounts the money would be found. The terminable annuities would be provided for annually in the Estimates, and the amount of the Sinking Fund would appear in the Treasury Account.
  MR. CLANCYasked whether the expenditure was to be regarded as an English charge or as an Imperial charge?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: Certainly as an Imperial charge. As to whether the site was a sufficient one, the net building area required for the new War Office was 67,000 square feet, and the site provided 74,000 square feet. With regard to the question of the existing accommodation, he need only point mil that at present the War Department occupied eight or ten buildings extending from Victoria Street to Pall Mall.
  MR. CALDWELLthought the matter ought to be looked at from a Scotch point of view. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not
  334
  think the people of Scotland wished to be parsimonious in regard to Government buildings, but there was another aspect of the question under which Scotland and Ireland were treated unfairly in the matter of taxation by the city of London with regard to these buildings. He did not object to their putting up expensive buildings, but he thought that when they woe choosing a site there should be some kind of understanding with the local authorities that the Government should not be mulcted in a large amount of local taxation.
  MR. M. J. FLAVINfelt bound as an Irish Member to protest against this Bill, under which £45,000 of Irish money was to be expended without, conferring any benefit direct or indirect on the Irish people. He would give an instance of the ungenerous way in which Ireland had been treated. In the county of Kerry a fatal calamity occurred, and eight lives were lost—
  MR. SPEAKER: That is not relevant to the matter under discussion. The hon. Member is entitled to make his protest, but he cannot go into foreign questions.
  MR. FLAVINsaid he only desired to point out that when an appeal was made to British charity in the case of the Killarney disaster Her Majesty the Queen contributed £5; and he believed it would have been £100 if the accident had happened in Germany.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 158; Noes, 2o.—(Division List, 156.)
  Bill Read a Second time.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS*MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS moved, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, three to be nominated by the House and two by the, Committee of Selection."
  MR. T. M. HEALYcommented upon the system which had grown up of referring Bills of this kind, which were really private Bills, to a hybrid Committee. The experience they had had of hybrid Committees in regard to quasi private Bills made it somewhat doubtful as to the rightfulness of referring an important matter of this kind to such a Committee.
  MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the practice followed here was the universal practice where the Government brought in a Bill which sought what he might call private Bill powers.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he would not oppose the Motion, but the fact of allowing it to pass on this Bill must not be taken as a precedent in regard to the Kingstown Harbour Roads Transfer Bill.
  MR. VESEY KNOXasked how the costs of this inquiry would be shared. Before an ordinary private Bill Committee the costs were shared between the parties. In this case would the costs be shared between the Treasury and the Crown?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he understood the fees to which the hon. Member alluded were paid out of the Vote for Committees, which was taken every year in that House.
  Bill committed to a Select Committee of five Members, three to be nominated by the House and two by the Committee of Selection.
  Ordered,—That all petitions against the Bill presented five clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their counsel or agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.
  Ordered,—That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered,—That three be the quorum.—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)

  KINGSTOWN HARBOUR ROADS TRANSFER BILL.
  On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval,
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY, Preston), moved, "That this Bill be now Read a Second time." He said that the Bill was brought forward simply to carry out an agreement that had been made between the Harbour Commissioners and the Town Commissioners of Kingstown. Adjacent
  336
  to one of the roads some good houses had been built, and although the Harbour Commissioners were undoubtedly bound to maintain it, there was no obligation on them to maintain the road in such a condition as it ought to be maintained in, with, on both sides of it, some good houses and clubs. It would be a great advantage to the Town Commissioners of Kingstown and the people generally, not only that this road should be kept in good condition, but also that it should be extended. The Bill was simply introduced to carry out an agreement whereby the road would be transferred to the Town Commissioners.
  MH. CLANCY: Have the Town Commissioners passed a resolution in favour of the Bill?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It is another Treasury swindle. [Cries of "Order!" and "Withdraw!']
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the expression. It is a most improper expression to use. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It was not applied to the right hon. Gentleman. It was applied to the Treasury.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Secretary to the Treasury was explaining a Treasury Bill, and the hon. Member interrupted him and said it was a Treasury swindle. That is a most improper expression. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I say that the British Treasury are continually swindling Ireland. [Cries of "Withdraw!"] I did not cast any imputation on the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the expression.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I said the British Treasury are continually swindling Ireland.
  MR. SPEAKER: That is not the expression which the hon. Gentleman used at first, and I must ask him to withdraw it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I said that the Bill was a Treasury swindle, and I did not mean the expression to apply to the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. SPEAKER: Whatever the hon. Member meant, it was an improper expression to use, and I hope he will withdraw it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: We were denied our rights yesterday, and I maintain my expression. [Ministerial cries of "Order, order!"] It is not a personal one and it is not unparliamentary. [Ministerial cries of "Order!" and "Withdraw!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman made use of the expression while the Secretary to the Treasury was speaking, and if it was nothing else, it was a disorderly interruption. ["Hear, hear!"] I must ask him to withdraw the expression.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: On that ground, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.
  MR. HANBURY, continuing, said that his information was that the Bill was brought in with the full consent of the Town Commissioners, and he contended that it would be of great advantage to them and to the people living on both sides of the road. As hon. Members opposite no doubt knew, a dispute had been going on between the Harbour Commissioners and the Town Commissioners with regard to the Government contribution towards the local rates. He believed the amount in dispute, which had not been paid since 1892, was about £700. That dispute would be arranged under the Bill, and that sum would be repaid, and the Government would bear its share of the rates in future as it did up to 1892. The Bill would realty be of advantage to all the three parties concerned—namely, the Harbour Commissioners, the Town Commissioners, and the people living in the road.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the Bill certainly presented the Treasury to the House in a most charming and agreeable light. Irish Members had been appealing for justice to Ireland for a very long time. They had been pressing for Franchise Hills, Local Government Bills, and other Measures, and the universal argument was "We have no time to attend to these matters "; but now the right hon. Gentleman out of his bounty, without anybody asking for it, was good enough, at the suggestion of that paternal body, the British Treasury to present them with this Bill. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] And what did the Bill do? It sought to take from a body the onus of keeping its own road in order, and to cast it on the poor fishermen and artisans of
  338
  Kingstown. The beneficent British Government, which owed Ireland 2¾ millions, now cast on the decaying town of Kingstown the duty, unasked and unsought for, of keeping a Treasury road in repair. ["Hear, hear!"] Every lease in the town would expire within ten years, and would revert to the lords of the soil. Lord de Vesci and Lord Longford. Was a single opinion asked in reference to this matter? Could the Treasury produce a scrap of writing from the Town Commissioners asking them to do this? The right hon. Gentleman said, "We have owed the Town Commissioners £700 for the last seven years." He wondered the British Treasury did not plead the Statute of Limitations. [Laughter.] In return for the repayment of that £700 they made the Town Commissioners pay out of the rates for the repair of this road, hitherto borne by the Treasury. The defence was that this was a growing residential neighbourhood. This matter was to be referred to a hybrid Committee, and there was to be power to send for persons, papers, and records; and eminent counsel were to! come over from Ireland on behalf of the Kingstown Commissioners to fight the British Treasury. Even the very frame of the Bill was a falsehood. A Government with an income of a hundred millions a year proposed to cast this burden upon a township that had not got a balance to its credit of £100 a year. The Irish Members on that side of the House bail pressed the British Treasury on every conceivable subject for the past 15 years, and never from the time he entered the House had they ever had anything but chicanery and dishonesty from the British Treasury. [Nationalist cheers.] How would an English Corporation like to be treated in this way? He was sorry the Colonial Secretary was not present to say how he would like Birmingham to be affected in that way. Why were English frauds to be perpetrated on this miserable country, out of which they were driving millions every year. If Ireland were a conquered country, and they occupied it as enemies, as the Prussians had occupied France, they could understand such proceedings, but the Government pretended they were there for all good. Good was never got out of them. They asked every now and then for some little element of relief;

  339
  the answer was that the Treasury could only make savings in regard to Ireland, but he observed that this burden was not only cast upon the township of Kingstown, but it had been cast upon them with a chancery suit in addition. Here was the boon which was killing Home Rule with kindness; this was the remedial Measure from a Government which owed this unfortunate township Board £700 and would not pay. Were they nut ashamed of themselves? [Nationalist cheers and Ministerial laughter.] No doubt this was a laughing matter for Englishmen; but Ireland, as compared with the British Empire, was but small; it could only interest the nation in its local affairs. Irishmen let England alone; they could bombard Crete to their hearts' content. All they sought was that in. their local affairs they should not be unfairly treated, and he could only describe this Bill as the essence of Treasury meanness and shabbiness. [Nationalist cheers.] They had had this expense for 40 years, and they selected the year of the Diamond Jubilee to give the Irish people this little birthday present. The Irish were quite willing to run their country without one farthing of expense to the British Treasury if this country would be good enough to show them their heels. Ireland did not ask them for a sovereign; all they sought was to control their own money. They only asked to be let alone, and to be allowed to run their own country in their own vulgar, rude, Irish way. [Laughter.] They left John Bull to his civilization and his bombardments—[Nationalist cheers]—and to the Concert of Europe. [Laughter.] When this country built roads for Imperial purposes, let it be good enough to keep them, and to maintain them, at any rate, while they obtained every year two and three-quarter millions from Ireland, according to the finding of a Royal Commission. [Nationalist cheers.]
  MR. CLANCYsaid he was astonished to hear the Secretary to the Treasury say that there was any agreement made between the Harbour Commissioners and the Town Commissioners of Kingstown. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman to say where and when such an agreement was made. He gathered from the silence of the right hon. Gentleman that he had no answer
  340
  to make, and he therefore was justified in coming to the conclusion that there was no agreement. His impression was that the Kingstown Town Commissioners disagreed with this proposal, and that at some meeting at Kingstown the greatest dissatisfaction was expressed at this proposal. In Clause 6 of the Bill the object of the Treasury came out in all its nakedness. That clause provided that henceforward these roads should be maintained by the Commissioners of Kingstown, instead of by the Treasury as heretofore. For the purpose of saving about £50 a year to the Treasury this Bill was introduced. A meaner act, a shabbier act, and a more dishonest act on the part of the Treasury had never been perpetrated within his recollection. There was nothing in the Bill providing for the repayment by the Treasury of the £700 which they owed the Kingstown Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman said it was the intention of the Government to pay it, but if there was no legal warrant for the Treasury not paying for the maintenance of these roads, how could they legally pay the Town Commissioners the money which they owed them in respect of these roads? In return for this I fresh taxation—for that was what it amounted to—the Town Commissioners were to get a couple of rocks—["hear, hear!" and laughter]—and even from this was reserved six yards of ground on either side of the obelisk of George IV. A good many of the Irish people regarded this obelisk as a mark of the degradation of the Irish people at the time it was erected. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman expected any harm to this obelisk, but he might rest assured that no harm would come to it. Would the grant of these six yards at either side rob England? The Irish people would like this obelisk. [Laughter.], They would like the six yards at either side of it. [Renewed laughter.] He really would trouble the House, if this Bill got into Committee, with an effort to keep the obelisk and the six yards at either side of it. [Laughter.] On the opposite side of Dublin Bay was the harbour of Howth. This was also a royal harbour, but the Government would not give the money to render it navigable, and yet insisted on keeping it in their own hands. To resort to this device in the present case for saving a paltry £100 seemed to him to

  341
  reach the very nadir of British Treasury meanness and dishonesty. ["Hear, hear!"] He regretted that the other Member for the County Dublin was not present, as he felt sure he would have his support. Unless the right hon. Gentleman produced evidence that the Town Commissioners of Kingstown—
  MR. HANBURY: There is a distinct written agreement made last year with the Town Commissioners, and this Bill carries out distinctly that agreement. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. CLANCYsaid an agreement between two public bodies such as Harbour Commissioners and Town Commissioners must be under seal, and must be founded on resolutions of those public bodies. That agreement should have been laid on the Table, or at all events mentioned in the preamble to the Bill. Until some evidence of this kind was produced he would strenuously oppose the Bill.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYsaid that this was a typical case of the way things in Ireland were managed by this country. This road was in a wealthy district in Ireland called Kingstown. It was used by the inhabitants, and was apparently a useful road, and yet his constituents in London were asked to keep it going. As an English Member he protested against that monstrous proposal. The hon. and learned Member for North Louth had said that they wanted nothing from England. Then let them pay this paltry sum themselves and not ask his constituents to contribute to it.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid that it might set the hon. Member's mind at case to know that this road did not belong to the inhabitants of the locality, but to the British Government, with whose works it formed a connection.
  MR. BARTLEY: But Irishmen use it.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid that had nothing to do with the matter. A Bill of this kind was a cross abuse of the forms of the House. It was practically an attempt to pass what was in effect a private Bill as a public Bill. All the forms of a private Bill were violated. For example, the agreement was not recited in the preamble and set forth in the schedule. The Secretary to the Treasury did not know whether an agreement had been come to.
  MR. HANBURY: I said distinctly that an agreement had been come to.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid he was within the recollection of the House when he stated that what the right hon. Gentleman said was, that he could not say that an agreement had been come to or that Resolutions had been passed, but that the Commissioners of Kingstown were in favour of the proposal. It was easy to say that a public body were in favour of a proposal; but the only way in which that could he shown was by the body passing Resolutions and entering into a formal written agreement. If such an agreement existed, why was it not produced? But if it were produced, he should regard it with the gravest suspicion. The Government and the Commissioners had, for the last few years, had a dispute about the road. The Government, he presumed, demanded that the Commissioners should take over the road, and the Commissioners repudiated the responsibility. Then the Government refused any longer to pay rates for the Government buildings in the locality, though rates were paid for Government buildings all over the country. If the agreement had been forced on the Commissioners by this means, it was worth nothing. This was a Bill which, to save the British Government a few pounds a year, sought to throw on a little Irish body the maintenance of some thousand yards of road. All the machinery of an Act of Parliament was invoked for this purpose. 'When the Government were asked for Irish reforms, they always replied that they could not possibly find the time. They had always plenty of time for Bills of this sort. The Irish Members would not assent to the Measure till they knew all about it; and he begged to move that the Bill be Read a Second time on that day six months.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLseconded the Motion, saying the matter was one which should not be allowed to pass without further explanation from the Secretary to the Treasury. Many small Bills affecting Irish interests had been introduced by the Government, most of them after midnight, which looked very harmless and simple; but which, on examination, proved to contain matter of an insidious, and harmful character to the interests of I Ireland. He remembered the Attorney

  343
  General for Ireland introducing a small Bill, which seemed—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must confine himself to the Bill before the House.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid he would not pursue the matter a step further than the Speaker's ruling allowed. But Clause 6 of this Bill imposed on the township of Kingstown not only the taking over of these roads in their present condition, but the expense of maintaining and repairing, as well as lighting and watering, the transferred roads and footways. The roads had been neglected for some years past, and probably one of the first things the Commission would have to do would be to expend a large sum in repairing the roads. He agreed with the hon. Member for North Louth that this was not the time to impose the smallest further taxation upon any Irish town. The three days Debate on the Financial? editions between England and Ireland ought to convince any Irish Member that the Government had no claim to come to the House and ask them to pass any Measure which would inflict the hardship of additional taxation on any Irish town. The Bill had many grave defects in it. As had been pointed out, Clause 8 would not only involve the transfer of land but involve the Commissioners of Kingstown in a serious law suit, which, as the House knew entailed, now-a-days, serious expense. If the matter had to be fought out before a Select Committee of the House, still more expense would be incurred. His hon. Friends had done well to raise the question, and he hoped it would be pressed to a, Division.
  MR. JAMES DALYopposed the Bill, saying that a trick like this sprung upon the House ought not to be allowed to pass. The hon. Member for North Louth let the cat out of the bag when he pointed out that this Bill was brought forward to benefit the owners of property in Kingstown. In ten years the property that adjoined this road would fall into the hands of the landlords, the value of whose property would be considerably enhanced at the expense of the ratepayers of Kingstown, who, for the next ten years would have to keep the road in repair. As Irish representatives they would not be doing their duty if they allowed this Bill to pass without
  344
  giving it, as they intended to do, their most strenuous opposition. When the Government did anything which was pretended to be for the good of Ireland he always regarded it with great suspicion. What was the position of the right hon. Gentleman? He was dictating the payment of this money. He was going to pay £700 to the Kingstown Commissioners, but he said if they accepted the money they must keep the road in repair. It was simply absurd. He could not see that it was honest. The right hon. Gentleman laid it down to the Commissioners that if they did not accept the money on the terms the right hon. Gentleman wished, they would not have it at all. He talked about, a dispute between the Harbour Commissioners and the Town Commissioners. He knew the Town Commissioners could not erect any buildings without the consent of the Harbour Commissioners. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was going to settle the matter once and for all, but that was not the case, for it did not appear that the disputes of the past were not to continue in the future. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to amend this portion of the Bill, at any rate. Perhaps the Kingstown Town Commissioners might not be under the Grand Jury. To say that this road was to be made, and that the keeping of it might fall under the control of the Grand Jury was a thing he protested against, and every Irish Member would protest against it. He would only say, in conclusion, that he did not like buying a pig in a poke. Even if he had no one to support him, he would oppose this Bill being Read a Second time, unless the right hon. Gentleman explained the different points he had brought before the House. The way the right hon. Gentleman had introduced the Bill filled him with suspicion. While Irish Members had been deluged with circulars from interested quarters in Kingstown asking them to vote for this Bill, had there been a single circular from anybody in Dublin asking them to vote for it? Certainly not. They had to take the right hon. Gentleman's word. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to get-rid of this legacy. The right thing to do would be to let the Government keep this little bit of ground. Unless the

  345
  right hon. Gentleman explained himself, he would give the Second Heading his opposition, and he had pleasure in supporting the Motion that the Bill be Read a Second time this day six months.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIENassociated himself with his colleagues from Ireland in this matter. He would reserve what he had to say on the merits of the Bill to a future occasion. He assumed the right hon. Gentleman would, with his usual courtesy, desire to give full explanations, but probably he felt he suffered from disability, because he would not be in order in doing so on the Motion before the House. With, the view of placing the right hon. Gentleman in order, he begged to move the adjournment of the Debate, so as to enable him to produce the proofs which he said he had in his possession that the people of Kingstown desired to have this Bill. He took it they need not be in a hurry with this Bill. The Government had been galloping over a course of Bills, and getting money night after night, and he rather thought the Irish Members were to blame for having, so to speak, demoralised the Government into the condition that they did not desire to give time to anything that concerned Ireland. The experience of the last few days had opened the eyes of the Irish Members to the error of their ways, and the Government in future might calculate on having every step of their course, and every proposal they made for spending money, questioned by the Irish Members. He did not desire to delay the business, and would, therefore, conclude by moving the adjournment of the Debate.
  MR. SPEAKER: I think that Motion is an abuse of the Rules of the House. I have the alternative of either refusing it, or taking an immediate Division upon it, and I adopt the latter course.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 60; Noes, 160.—(Division List, No. 157.)
  MR. T. M. HEALYrose to continue the Debate on the original Question, "That
  346
  the word 'now' stand part of the Question," when,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.) moved, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 164; Noes, 67.—(Division List, No. 158.)
  Question put accordingly, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 165; Noes, 68.—(Division List, No. 159.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY, on a Question of order, asked whether this was a hybrid Bill, and if so whether the Speaker had satisfied himself that the procedure in regard to hybrid Bills had been regularly followed?
  MR. SPEAKER: The Bill has been before the Examiners and they have certified that on all those matters of which they have cognisance the Standing Orders have been complied with. Therefore it is ripe for Second Reading.
  MR. HANBURYclaimed to move "That the main Question be now put."
  Main Question put, "That the Bill be now Read a Second time."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 171; Noes, 67.—(Division List, No. 160.)
  Bill Read a Second time.
  MR. HANBURY*MR. HANBURY moved,
  "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, three to be nominated by the House, and two by the Committee of Selection; that all petitions against the Bill presented five clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their counsel, or agents, be heard against the Bill, and counsel heard in support of the Bill; that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records; that three be the quorum."
  MR. T. M. HEALY MR. T. M. HEALY moved to omit the word "Select" in order to insert the word "Standing." This would, he said, give the Government the opportunity of saying whether they preferred to send this Bill to the Standing Committee on Law or the Standing Committee on Trade.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid he thought the Amendment would not be in order. This was a Motion which must be made according to the regular practice of the House in the case of a public Bill which sought private Bill powers.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that surely it was open to the House to take any course they liked in regard to a particular Bill—either to send it to a Private Bill, a Select, or a Standing Committee. He submitted with confidence that there was no Standing Order governing the matter, and that it was the invariable practice to put the reference to the Committee as a separate question.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid the usual course in such a case was to put the Motion as a whole. The hon. Member could not move to dispense with the Select Committee, and substitute a Standing Committee.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that when the Bill had been withdrawn from the purview of the House and it came back, he would move that it be referred to a Grand Committee. At the present moment he confined himself to moving that the word "five" be omitted, and the word "fifteen" be substituted. If that were carried he would move a consequential Motion. This was a Bill in which English Members had little concern. The proposal, as he understood it, was to refer the Bill to a Committee of five, of whom three only were to be selected by the House. The Irish Members' proportion of three would be nil, because the Government would be entitled to two Members, and the Liberal Opposition to one. This proposal amounted to a device to carry the Bill through a Committee from which Irish Members were excluded. Nobody had more confidence in the right
  348
  hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Sir J. Mowbray) than he had, but he maintained that this was not a case for the Committee of Selection at all, The Committee of Selection were to take into view considerations affecting parties and the like, but this was a question of Ireland versus England—[interruption]—a question of all Ireland against the British Treasury.
  MR. HEBERT DUNCOMBEclaimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question. Debate resumed.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that they were not in Crete yet. [Nationalist cheers.] One would think the hon. Member was Sir A. Biliotti at a drumhead Court-Martial. [Renewed cheers.] This might be a simple question from the point of view of English millionaires, but the people who were being robbed by the English Treasury were entitled to say that the Committee of Selection was not the proper tribunal to decide this matter, and that the proper tribunal was the House of Commons. The Committee of Selection would have to select two Members. Again, of the two seats Irishmen would be entitled to neither. Was that a fair way to proceed if hon. Members wanted to get on to the Berriew School Bill? [Laughter.] A more dangerous performance he had never known. The fault was not theirs that precedence had been given to this Bill. Accordingly, as he had said at the outset, they were entitled to maintain that the ordinary rules of the House ought to be upheld. Out of the 15, what chance would they have? They would only have two Members to meet the embattled might—[laughter]—of the supporters of the Bill. He said it was a monstrous thing to propose to shut them out. Two Members of the Government, unless they waived their right in favour of some more intelligent Members of their Party—[laughter]—would be entitled to be on

  349
  the Committee. Who was to be the other one? Why, sonic Gentleman sitting on the Front Opposition Bench. Would any one pretend that that was fair? He said that it was a most unfair thing. He had yet to learn that Kingstown had the power to spend money out of the rates in order to come over there and meet the Treasury Council. The only other case that he remembered of a Bill of this kind being dealt with in this way was the Ulster Canal Bill. What hope could the Irish Members have of carrying their point of view in a small Committee, of whom two would be representatives of the Treasury, the promoters of the Bill? They would only have to put on one other Gentleman who would support them in order to carry the whole Bill. In the case of a Bill like this, which came before the House under such unfavourable auspices, it would be only fair that the tribunal should not be a hole-and-corner one, and that the House at large should have some voice in its composition. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MAJOR JAMESONseconded the Motion. He complained that while the Public Health (Scotland) Bill had been sent to the Grand Committee, this Bill, simply because it was an Irish Bill, was to go to a Select Committee.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that this was not done in lieu of sending the Bill to the Standing Committee. This was a proceeding which the ordinary practice of the House provided in Older that persons whose private rights were affected might have an opportunity of appearing and being heard. After the Bill had been before the Committee, it would come back for consideration by a Committee of the whole House.
  MAJOR JAMESONcontended that a Committee of 15 would be much fairer to the Irish Members. With a Committee of five, no one else but the Treasury, who were the promoters of the Bill, would have a chance, and therefore they asked the House to appoint a Committee of 15.
  MR. HANBURYsaid the hon. Member for Louth had based his Amendment on two theories; one, that there would lie
  350
  no adequate Irish representation, and the other that the Treasury would be too strongly represented on this Committee. With regard to the Treasury, he could assure the hon. Member that there was no intention whatever to put two Treasury representatives on the Committee. He was sure also that it was the wish of the Government, who could not control the Committee of Selection, but could control the nomination of Members by the House, that the Irish Members should be adequately represented. But, after all, although the hon. Member spoke, so strongly as to Irishmen being represented on the Committee, the only persons properly concerned were the people of Kingstown and the Town Commissioners, and, as he had explained—
  MR. T. M. HEALY, rising to order, said that he was stopped when referring to the merits of the Bill, and he submitted that the right hon. Gentleman, having declined to avail himself of two opportunities he had had to go into the matter, was now not in order in so doing.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid the right hon. Gentleman might perhaps be progressing in that direction, but he did not think he was yet out of order. [Laughter.]
  MR. HANBURYsaid this was not really a very important Irish interest, and there was no opposition from the persons most concerned in Ireland. He thought there was no necessity for increasing the number of the Committee, for the reasons which he had given.
  MR. CLANCYsaid he wondered why, if the right hon. Gentleman had the agreement of which he had spoken in his pocket, he did not produce it, or at least the Resolution upon which it was founded. Would the Government say they would not have another Member on the Committee supporting the Treasury? In accordance with the invariable practice of every Government, they would, he ventured to say, insist on having a majority of their own supporters. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would agree to refer the Bill to a Committee of one Treasury representative and two Irish Members? The fact was this Bill

  351
  was for the benefit of the Treasury, and until the right hon. Gentleman produced the agreement, or gave them a guarantee on the subject, he should support the Amendment.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid that until they had some guarantee that this Measure was not objectionable to the Commissioners they must treat it as being contentious. The framing of the Motion showed that the Treasury regarded it as a contentious Measure, which was to be fought out by counsel. The right hon. Gentleman had not answered the point as to the Commissioners not being able to employ counsel before this body. He did not know whether it was permissible for the Court of Selection to put a Member having an interest in the Bill—say the hon. Member for this division of County Dublin—but if that could be done he asked an assurance from the Government that the hon. Member for South Dublin, who was a supporter of the Government, and against whom, therefore, nothing could be said from a Party point of view, should be one of the three Members of the Committee. However, the proposal to refer the Bill to a Committee of five had been conclusively demonstrated to be an unfair proposal. The right hon. Gentleman had not attempted to defend it except on the ground that the Bill was a non-contentious Bill; but instead of that being the fact the Bill was one that would be sharply contested by the people of Kingstown and the Town Commissioners of Kingstown.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I rise, Sir, to move the adjournment of the Debate. [Cheers.] My reason for doing so is this. This Bill was brought in by my right hon. Friend for no other purpose than to benefit the township of Kingstown, and it was brought in by agreement with the Kingstown Town Commissioners. [Cheers.] Under those circumstances we had a right to expect different treatment from hon. Members opposite than that we have received from them. [Cheers.] But, inasmuch as these
  352
  hon. Members are determined to waste the time of the House on what is really a private Bill—a Bill brought in to save the township of Kingstown the cost of bringing in a private Bill—[cheers]—we see no use in prolonging the Debate. I therefore move that the Debate be now adjourned, and I shall subsequently propose that the Order be discharged. [Cheers.]
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that when they a little while ago moved a similar Motion, they were not allowed to give their reasons, but were closured, and if there had been any time wasted it was wasted by the Government. [Cheers.] He denied that the Bill had been brought in for the benefit of Kingstown. [Cheers.] It deprived Kingstown of over £700 that was due to her from the Treasury in regard to those roads. It was a very excellent lesson they had learned from the action of the right hon. Gentleman. It showed that by a little courage and a little firmness, even the greatest swindles of the Treasury could lie unmasked and could be scotched. [cheers] They had saved Kingstown from n gross imposition, and they had exposed the British Treasury as they had exposed them last year on several occasions—in the act of committing a fraud on the taxpayers. [Cheers.] He had only to remind the House, in conclusion, that in the course of the two hours' Debate on the Bill the Secretary to the Treasury had sent round to the Treasury for the alleged agreement which he said he possessed. [Cries of "Oh!"]
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. Member in order in attributing fraud to the Treasury Bench, and in using the word "alleged" in reference to the statements of the Secretary to the Treasury?
  MR. SPEAKER: The use of the word "alleged" is improper if it was used in the sense, as it seemed to me that it was, of suggesting that something stated by the right hon. Gentleman was not true. As to the word "fraud" in connection

  353
  with the Treasury, such words are extremely objectionable in Debate; but, unless they amount to a specific personal allegation against an hon. Member, they are hardly out of order. The action of the Government, as a whole, can be denounced in much stronger language than can be used about an individual Member of the House. But the hon. and learned Member goes extremely near the line.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that for the word "alleged" he would substitute the word "postulated." [Laughter.] The Secretary to the Treasury had sent for the agreement, and though the Government had had three opportunities of producing the agreement, it had not been produced.
  Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I move that the order be discharged.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in charge of the Bill. [Cheers and laughter.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I move, Sir.
  Bill withdrawn amid loud Nationalist cheers.

  TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Head the Third time, and passed.

  EDINBURGH UNIVERSITY (TRANSFER OF PATRONAGE) BILL.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE*THE LORD ADVOCATE moved the Second Heading of this Hill. He explained that its object was simply, for the sake of convenience, to transfer to the University the patronage of a Chair vested in the Crown, and to transfer to the Crown, in exchange, the patronage of a Chair vested in the University.
  MR. CALDWELLsuggested that the next stage of the Bill should not be taken until after Easter, so that the Council of the University, which met shortly, might have an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon it.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: Certainly, Sir. I agree to that.
  Read a Second time, and committed for Monday 3rd May.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ALDERSHOT AND FARNBOROUGH) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now Read a Second time."—Debate arising; and, it being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned; to be resumed upon Monday next.

  REGULAR AND ELDERS' WIDOWS FUNDS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  DANGEROUS PERFORMANCES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  PATENT OFFICE EXTENSION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (UNDERMANNING) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  FOREIGN PRISON MADE GOODS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  BERRIEW SCHOOL BILL.
  Second Rending deferred till Monday next.
  LAW OF EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL CASES) BILL.
  Second Heading deferred till Monday next.
  ARCHDEACONRY OF CORNWALL BILL.
  Second Heading deferred till Monday next.
  RAILWAY ASSESSORS (SCOTLAND) SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Second Heading deferred till Monday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Heading deferred till Friday 30th April.
  COUNTY COUNCILS (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 30th April.
  TRUCK ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Heading deferred till Thursday next.
  STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Motion for Committal to Standing Committee on Trade, etc. [17th February] further adjourned till Monday 26th April.
  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Motion for Committal to Select Committee [24th March] further adjourned till Monday next.
  COUNTY GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (COUNTY COUNCIL CLERKS) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  Second Heading deferred till Monday next.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Heading deferred till Monday next.
  LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
  MOTIONS.
    NAVY AND MARINES (WILLS) ACT (1865) AMENDMENT.
    Bill to amend the Navy and Marines (Wills) Act 1865, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Macartney and Mr. Attorney General; presented, and read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 183.]

    CHAFF-CUTTING MACHINES ACCIDENTS.
    Bill for the prevention of Accidents by Chaff-cutting Machines, ordered to be brought in by Captain Pretyman, Lord Alwyne Compton, Mr. Grant Lawson, Mr. Beaumont, Earl of Dalkeith, Mr. MacNeill, Mr. Giles, Mr. Channing, and Mr. F. W. Wilson; presented, and Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 184.]
    House Adjourned at Five Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.