Commons Sitting of 28 June 1897

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  RAILWAY CLEARING HOUSE BILL [H.L.]
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [27th May],—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Railway Clearing House Bill [Lords] that they insert provisions requiring the promoters to publish for the use of traders, on such terms and conditions as the Board of Trade may direct, any sectional or other railway maps constructed for the Railway Clearing House, indicating the different lines of railway and the distances along the same."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
  *MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSONsaid he was happy to say that he was now in a position to ask leave to withdraw his Motion. He had been met in a fair and generous spirit by the railway companies in reference to the matter which was the subject of his Instruction. The railway companies had agreed to allow the sale to traders of the maps to which he had referred, and if there was any other information which the Railway Clearing House could give, and which traders thought would be of use to them, he had no doubt that they would give favourable consideration to any proposals in reference to them which might be made through the Mansion House Association on Railway and Canal Traffic or otherwise. He ought to say that be was very much indebted to the hon. Member for Stretford for his exertions in furtherance of the objects they both had in view. He asked leave to withdraw his Motion. ["Hear!"]
  MR. MELLORsaid that the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman was most satisfactory. He had no doubt that as soon as the railway companies had it explained to them that the traders were asking for no more than they were entitled to they would speedily come to some understanding with the hon. and
  630
  learned Gentleman that would be satisfactory to all concerned. He thought that the action of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had conduced largely to the settlement of the question.
  MR. T. LOUGHwished to know from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade what had been done by his Department in the matter?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,)thought that the decision at which the railway companies had arrived was of a very satisfactory nature, and that the action of the hon. and learned Gentleman had been fully justified. He had received the following letter from the Secretary of the Railway Clearing House in reference to the subject of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Motion:—
  "Railway Clearing House, "Seymour-street, Euston Square, London, "14th June, 1897.
  "Sir,—With reference to your letter of the 10th February last, stating that it appears to the Board of Trade very desirable that sectional maps of railways formerly issued by Mr. Airey should be reprinted and put on sale, I am instructed now to inform you that the Clearing House Committee have decided that in addition to the general railway maps of England, Scotland, and Ireland now on sale, sectional railway maps and diagrams, indicating the different lines of railway and showing distances between stations, shall also be placed on sale to the public.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
  "T. STUART, Secretary.
  "The Assistant Secretary, Railway Department, Board of Trade."
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

QUESTIONS.

  DELIVERY OF TELEGRAMS (NOTTINGHAM).
  MR. E. BOND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that Mr. Carl Sipman, of Nottingham, to whom for many years telegrams addressed "Sipman, Nottingham," have been regularly delivered, has recently been informed that telegrams

  631
  so addressed will be treated as undeliverable; whether the Post Office authorities have any right by statute or otherwise to refuse to deliver a prepaid telegram the addressee of which is perfectly well known at the office of delivery; and whether, if such right exists, he can give an assurance that it will not be exercised in view of the inconvenience and annoyance which its exercise will occasion?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The Postmaster General is aware that Mr. Carl Sipman, of Nottingham, has been informed that telegrams addressed "Sipman, Nottingham," will, after the 31st August next, be treated as undeliverable. Mr. Sipman's case is covered by the answer I gave to the Question asked by the hon. Member on the 3rd instant. "Sipman, Nottingham," is not a sufficient address for telegrams, and the Postmaster General is not prepared to arrange for the continued delivery of telegrams so addressed unless Mr. Sip-man registers the address in accordance with the usual practice.

  CHANNEL SQUADRON.
  SIR LEONARD LYELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Channel Squadron, or any part of it, will make its annual summer cruise round the north of Scotland this year; and, if so, whether Lerwick will be one of the ports visited?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): It is not probable that the Channel Squadron will visit the north of Scotland this summer.

  KEW GARDENS.
  MR. ALFRED BILLSON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works (1) whether steps can be taken to publish without further delay a new edition of the Guide to the Royal Gardens, Kew, which has been out of print for several years, seeing that similar Questions have been asked in this House in 1891, 1892, 1893, and 1895, and that in 1892 the then First Commissioner of Works stated that the Guide was almost ready, and that it was hoped to issue it during the summer; (2) whether it is
  632
  intended to continue the issue of the monthly bulletin of miscellaneous information in connection with. Kew Gardens; (3) whether he is aware that the number for December last has not yet appeared; (4) whether only one number has been issued this year; and (5) whether any progress has been made with the continuation of the Flora of Tropical Africa, the completion of which was authorised by the Treasury in 1891, on the understanding that one volume would be published every two years; or whether, owing to the non-fulfilment of this condition, the authorisation has lapsed; and in that case, will it be renewed?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): Owing to great pressure of work at Kew the Director seems unable to make rapid progress with the new edition of the general guide to the Gardens, beyond the preparation of guides to various departments, ten of which have been recently published and are on sale. The answer to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. Only one number has been issued this year (January). A new volume of the Flora of Tropical Africa will be ready next year. Instructions were last Autumn issued to the Director to have the work proceeded with as quickly as possible, and an additional assistant was given him that he might have more time for its supervision.

INNS OF COURT RIFLES.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Mr. Mullick, a native of India resident in this country, after having been proposed and seconded as an eligible member of the Inns of Court Rifles, was informed by the Commanding Officer that, although he was personally unexceptionable, Indians being objected to by some members of the corps, the nomination must be withdrawn, the Officer writing to the effect that, being an Indian native gentleman, Mr. Mullick is not eligible for an English volunteer corps; whether natives of India belong to the University corps in Oxford and Cambridge and to many other corps; whether he is aware that an opinion has been expressed by the Benchers of the Inns

633
of Court that the exclusion of Indians as a class is regrettable, and the Commanding Officer has stated publicly that there is a War Office memorandum which prohibits the enrolment of native Indians in English volunteer corps; whether there is any foundation for the statement of the Commanding Officer as to the order of the War Office; and, whether a correspondence has taken place between the Benchers of Gray's Inn and the Commanding Officer of the regiment, in which they state that the grounds on which Mr. Mullick has been declared ineligible are erroneous?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The admission of any subject of Her Majesty to a volunteer corps rests solely with the Commanding Officer. In Mr. Mullick's case it is understood that the Commanding Officer did not accept his nomination. There are natives of India serving in volunteer corps, and there is no War Office document prohibiting their enrolment. Owing to a misapprehension caused by some unofficial correspondence, the Commanding Officer of the Inns of Court Volunteers was led to believe that natives of India could not be enrolled, but this has been corrected. It is understood that there has been some correspondence between the Commanding Officer and the Benchers; but the Officer Commanding is the only authority as to persons to be enrolled in volunteer corps who can be recognised.

QUEEN'S DIAMOND JUBILEE.
MR. J. AIRD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can now state the consideration to be given to the police force of the Metropolis for their arduous and most successful efforts in keeping order during the recent Jubilee rejoicings; and if it is intended to give a medal to the police on this special occasion?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): Yes, Sir, a medal will be issued to the police, and I have sanctioned, in addition, the grant of four days' extra pay.
MR. AIRDasked whether it was to be understood that the medals would be issued to all the police of the Metropolis?
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: Yes, Sir, to the whole of the Metropolitan Police Force.
COLONEL DENNY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to certain allegations in the Press that dissatisfaction exists among the Colonial troops as to their treatment by the Military authorities; and whether he can make a statement on the subject?
MR. BRODRICK: In reference to this Question the following letter was voluntarily addressed to the War Office on the 18th June by the officers commanding the various Colonial detachments, all of whose signatures are attached to it,—
"Having, seen in some of the daily papers that dissatisfaction exists amongst the Colonial troops stationed at Chelsea Barracks with reference to the treatment they have received from the military authorities, we have the honour to inform you that the report is entirely devoid of foundation.
"The officers in command of every detachment from the colonies are unanimous in their opinion that the accommodation provided and arrangements made for the comfort of their troops reflect the greatest credit on the military authorities, enhanced as the difficulty is by having to deal with so many units of different nationalities."
It is further reported to the War Office by the Commanding Officer that, as far as he can judge, the feeling of all ranks under his command is one of resentment against those persons who have taken upon themselves the task of making complaints on their behalf. I can assure the House that nothing has been or will be wanting on the part of the authorities to render the stay of our Colonial guests as agreeable as possible. [Cheers.]
MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury who was responsible for the arrangements connected with the reception of the House of Commons at Buckingham Palace on Wednesday last; and whether any explanation of the circumstances has been received?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): In answer to the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that the persons responsible for the arrangements connected with the reception of the Houses of Parliament at Buckingham Palace are the Palace

635
officials. I have received a communication from the Lord Chamberlain this morning in which he states that—
"it had been the earnest wish of the officers of the Household to show the utmost respect to the Speaker and the Members of the House of Commons."
He expresses his very great regret that, notwithstanding their best endeavours, anything should have occurred to produce an unfavourable impression. [Laughter.] That is, I am afraid, all the information I can give the hon. Member.
MR. LOUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an opportunity, in connection with some Vote on the Estimates, at an early date, to express its opinion. ["Oh!" and cheers.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, Sir; I do not think it will be possible in the first place; and, in the second place, I do not think it desirable that the House should express an opinion upon the discretion exercised by the officials at the Palace.
MR. E. BOULNOIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that abnormal fares have been charged to the public during the last few days by the London General Omnibus Company, the Road Car Company, and some other omnibus proprietors, whereas cab proprietors were expressly warned that they must not make any difference in the scale of fares; and whether he can take steps in the interest of the poorer classes to prevent the recurrence of such a proceeding?
*SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I believe it is the case that very high fares were charged by omnibus proprietors on one or two days last week. This, however, was no violation of the Acts, which leave it to the proprietors to fix their own fares, and only require that the fares fixed shall be distinctly painted in a conspicuous place in the inside of the omnibus. Cab fares stand on an entirely different footing, being regulated, under statute, by a Home Office Order. I very much doubt whether it would be to the public advantage that omnibus fares should be similarly regulated.
MR. E. H. PICKERSGILLasked whether the right
636
hon. Gentleman had heard that the police were dissatisfied with the arrangement by which the extra fares were painted inside the omnibuses?
*SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: No, Sir; I have heard nothing from the Police on the subject.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that a woman named Mrs. Fitzsimmons died from injuries received in a police baton charge on the 22nd inst., while Her Majesty's Jubilee was being celebrated in Dublin; whether he is aware that nearly 300 persons were treated in the hospitals of Dublin for injuries resulting from the baton charges of the police, and whether he will cause a sworn inquiry to be held with the view of fixing the responsibility for these outrages inflicted on the citizens of Dublin while exercising their legal rights?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): There is no doubt that Mrs. Fitzsimmons met her death in consequence of injuries received by her during the disturbances that took place on Tuesday, the 22nd inst.; but whether death was actually caused by her being trampled upon by the crowd, or by her afterwards falling from the car on which she was being transported to the hospital, is uncertain. The fall from the car took place in consequence of the policeman in charge of the car being struck down by a blow from a stick or stone while in the act of discharging this office of humanity. I have no certain information of the number of persons who have been treated in the hospital for injuries received in the course of the disturbances, but I should imagine the number given by the hon. Member is in excess of the facts. It would be altogether premature to state whether any inquiry may be considered desirable.
MR. O'BRIENasked whether in case the Coroner's jury brought in a verdict declaring that the police were responsible for Mrs. Fitzsimmons' death, would the Government accept it?
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! That is a hypothetical question.
MR. CHARLES SHAW: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty

637
if he is aware that on Saturday last, on board the Campania, at the naval review, there were 1,800 persons; that out of that number the Members of the House of Commons and their friends only amounted to 800; and how it arises that so large a percentage of those on board were members of the outside public, when the ship had been placed at the disposal, as understood, of the Members of the House of Commons? I also wish to ask into whose coffers the five guineas charge went for the accommodation of bed, breakfast, and dinner on board—whether to the Admiralty, or to the Cunard Company?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTYnot being present, no answer was given.

VOLUNTEER RIFLE RANGE GLOUCESTERSHIRE).
GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the detriment to the public service resulting from there being no central range suitable for the new rifle now at the disposal of the Gloucestershire Volunteers; and whether he will consider favourably the desirability of allotting a portion of the money voted by Parliament for rifle ranges to provide a suitable range near Gloucester to replace the one recently condemned?
MR. BRODRICK: The money voted by Parliament for rifle ranges was primarily intended for the establishment of central ranges for the Regulars and Militia. There has been, however, every desire to find accommodation as far as possible for the Volunteers, and the position of the County of Gloucester will be considered.

MUZZLING ORDER (SHEEP DOGS).
MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the west division of the County of Wicklow is an almost entirely mountainous country, whose inhabitants live mainly by sheep farming; and that the Muzzling Order to be issued on the 1st of July will seriously interfere with the business of the sheep farmers; and whether, in view of the losses which will be caused to sheep owners by the Muzzling Order, he will make the exception
638
in favour of sheep dogs which is to be made in regard to sporting dogs?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The exception made by the Muzzling Order in favour of sporting dogs applies only when such dogs are being exercised or used for sporting purposes, and in charge of competent persons. It must also be observed that the Order requires that all dogs, except sporting dogs on these special occasions, shall be muzzled in or on any public place which includes garden or pleasure ground or other place to which the public have access. No exemption in favour of sheep dogs has been made in the Muzzling Orders issued by the English Board of Agriculture, and my right hon. Friend the President of that Board, who was recently questioned on the subject, stated that the result of inquiries made by him went to show that no really serious inconvenience is caused by requiring sheep dogs to be muzzled in districts where such a measure is necessary, and that the exemption of such dogs from the operation of the Orders would seriously impair the efficiency of the Orders, and render necessary their continuance for a longer period than, it was hoped, would otherwise be requisite. I see no sufficient ground for making an exemption from the Order in favour of sheep dogs in Ireland.
MR. JAMES O'CONNORasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that there were more sporting dogs than sheep dogs in the County of Wick-low, and whether, in that case, he did not think that it would be more dangerous to leave the majority of the dogs un-muzzled than to leave the minority unmuzzled?
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is a matter of opinion.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that sheep dogs could not do their work unless they were able to bite the sheep?
[No answer was given.]

EGYPTIAN POLITICAL PRISONERS.
MR. MICHAEL DAVITT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether appeals for the remission of their sentences of exile have lately been received from some of the Egyptian political prisoners at present detained at Ceylon; and, if so, whether

639
there is any objection to having copies of these appeals laid upon the Table of the House?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. CURZON,): The Governor of Ceylon has forwarded memorials from certain of the Egyptian exiles in that island to the Queen and to Lord Salisbury, praying for the exercise of Her Majesty's influence towards obtaining for them permission to leave Ceylon and to take up their abode in Cyprus. There would be no objection to laying copies of these Papers on the Table if it was so desired. But the matter is one primarily for the consideration of the Egyptian Ministry, who are reported by Lord Cromer to be much averse to granting the application.
MR. J. DILLONdesired to ask, in connection with this Question, whether Lord Cromer was not in a position to decide the Egyptian Ministry in one way or the other in this as in all other matters?
MR. CURZON: No, Sir. That is not at all a correct description of the attitude or position of Lord Cromer. He reports to us the views of the Egyptian Ministry in the matter, which I have already stated to the House.
MR. DAVITTasked if he understood that Papers were to be laid on the Table?
MR. CURZON: If it is the desire of hon. Members they shall be laid.
MR. DAVITT: There is such a desire, and I trust they will be forthcoming.
MR. CURZON: They shall be.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether, in laying on the Table the Papers promised, the right hon. Gentleman would also lay such Papers as would show in virtue of what authority and under what law, international or municipal, these prisoners are detained?
MR. CURZON: No, Sir; it is quite unnecessary.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say now by what authority they are detained?
[No answer was given.]

VOLUNTARY SCHOOL RATE (DIDSBURY).
MR. J. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Demand Note for the
640
General District Hate of the Urban District Council of Withington, Manchester, contains the item: Didsbury Voluntary School Rate, at 1d. in the pound, optional; and whether he will take steps to procure the omission of the item in future?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): At present I can only state that I am in communication with the Urban District Council on the subject. The Question is to be considered by them at a meeting to-morrow.

CHURCH CATECHISM (NORTH MUNDHAM BOARD SCHOOL).
MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Church Catechism is still taught, wholly or in part, in the North Mundham Board School; whether he is aware that on Ascension Day the scholars were taken to church in the morning, and had a holiday in the afternoon, though they were to be examined by the Government Inspector the next day; and whether the Department will take steps to insure the due observance by the Board of the provisions of the Education Act of 1870?
THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): I believe parts of the Church Catechism not distinctive of any particular denomination are still taught in North Mundham Board School. I have no information as to the proceedings of the school on Ascension Day, but if they were such as are suggested in the Question they seem unobjectionable. The Committee of Council have no reason to suppose that the North Mundham School Board will fail to observe the provisions of the Education Act of 1870.

SUB-POSTMASTERS (DELIVERY OF TELEGRAMS).
MR. R. J. PRICE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is true that the new scale of allowances to sub-postmasters for delivery of telegrams has been reduced as follows: from 1 mile to 1½ miles, 33 per cent.; from 2 miles to 3 miles, 25 per cent.; from 3 miles to 4 miles, 25 per cent.; and from 4 miles to 5 miles, 25

641
per cent.; and whether it is intended that any part of the cost of the proposed reduction in porterage of telegrams should be paid by sub-postmasters?
MR. HANBURY: No new scale of allowances to sub-postmasters for the delivery of telegrams has been definitely fixed. The Postmaster General, however, hopes that, by the extended use of the cycle and in other ways, it will be possible to effect some economy in the arrangements for delivery, and he has asked for a report from his local officers on the expediency of adopting a scale which at some points involves the reductions stated by the hon. Member. The Postmaster General will, however, see that the allowances are adequate for the services performed, and it is certainly not his intention that any part of the cost of the proposed reduction in porterage of telegrams should be paid out of the remuneration of the sub-postmasters, whose duty it is to pay the allowance whatever it may be to the person delivering the message.

BELFAST POLICE COURT CELLS.
MR. DILLON: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McCARTAN), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the evidence of the head constable giver at the coroner's inquest on Catherine Steele, who died in Belfast workhouse on the 12th instant, and to the effect that a yearly average of 10,000 prisoners pas through Belfast Police Court cells; whether he can state the greatest number of prisoners put into the largest of these cells at one time; whether he will give the dimensions of the cell and say what lavatory accommodation it contains, and if there are any restoratives provided or available in case of persons being taken ill there; whether, notwithstanding the number of female prisoners, there is no woman appointed to look after them; and whether he will consider the desirability of having some woman appointed to assist the constabulary in caring for the female prisoners?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My attention has been directed to the evidence given by the head constable of police in the case referred to, which sets forth the facts with substantial accuracy. The
642
dimensions of the largest of the cells are 20 feet 8 inches by 15 feet 6 inches by 11 feet. The maximum number of persons placed in this cell, at one time, was 20. It contains only one w.c., of a very defective kind, and no restoratives are provided or available for persons taken suddenly ill. There is no female attendant to look after the female prisoners, though there is a female searcher who is sent for when required, to search female prisoners. I may observe that in November, 1895, Mr. Seddall, the district inspector of police, at the request of the Lord Mayor and members of the Police Committee of the Belfast Corporation, made a written report to the Committee on the subject of the condition of the cells, and that subsequently two members of the Committee, accompanied by the Commissioners of Police, visited and inspected the police stations of a number of towns in England and Scotland. The result of that inspection was a report recommending the erection of new cells in substitution of the existing ones, which were strongly condemned. I understand that application has been made by the Corporation to the Local Government Board for a loan to enable the Corporation to proceed with the construction of new cells, and I may add that one of the proposals in connection with the new cells is that there should be one or more female attendants appointed to look after female prisoners.
MR. DILLONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would not do something to hurry up the Corporation in this matter, as he understood that the cells had been condemned for a long time, and that the coroner's jury had severely censured the Corporation in delaying to take action?
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that he had no power over the Corporation, but probably the asking this Question would call their attention to the subject.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that of the detachment of the West African Constabulary now attached to the depôt of the Royal Irish Constabulary, in the Phœnix Park, Dublin, for the purpose of instruction in

643
Irish police methods, the sergeants are admitted to the membership of the sergeants' mess of the Royal Irish Constabulary, while the officer is not admitted to the privileges of the Royal Irish Constabulary officers' mess; and whether, having regard to the desire for promoting unity amongst various nationalities in the British Empire, any steps will be taken to admit this gentleman to the officers' mess of the Royal Irish Constabulary?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The sergeants of the West African Police, to whom reference is made, have access to the Royal Irish Constabulary sergeants' mess room at the depot, though they do not take their meals there. The Assistant Superintendent of the West African detachment does not mess with the depôt officers, nor do I think, having regard to the amount of his pay, which is comparatively very small, that he would consider it a privilege to have to defray the cost of messing with the officers.
MR. MACNEILLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that this unfortunate man had to leave the depôt and to go two miles to get his dinner?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: He resides a little over a quarter of a mile from the depôt.

CHARGE OF THEFT (DUBLIN).
MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the arrest and prosecution of Mrs. Birdie Butler and Mr. James O'Dea, a graduate and scholar of Trinity College, Dublin, and to their frequent remands, bail being refused on one occasion in the case of Mr. O'Dea, on a charge which the authorities now admit to have been absolutely groundless, of stealing a bag containing money at the Limerick Junction, which Mr. O'Dea, who was travelling up to Dublin with Mrs. Butler, believed with other luggage to have belonged to that lady, but which had been left carelessly near that luggage by a bank clerk in whose charge it was; and whether, having regard to the expense, grievous personal inconvenience, and anxiety of mind to which Mr. O'Dea and Mrs. Butler have been subjected, the Government intend to take any steps to make any compensation to them?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The accused were found in possession of this bag, of small dimensions, but weighing 35lbs., and containing a large sum in gold, under circumstances which required thorough investigation, and completely justified the action of the police. The accused parties were not put to unnecessary inconvenience, and though they have, on the full examination of the facts, been entirely exculpated, it is not a case calling for compensation by the Crown.
MR. MACNEILLasked the right hon. Gentleman if he was aware that this lady and graduate of Trinity College were kept in prison five days on this charge?
MR. GERALD BALFOURwas understood to say that he was not aware of the fact mentioned by the hon. Member.
MR. MACNEILL: I recommend them to consult a solicitor.

INDIAN RAILWAYS.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what has been the amount of charge on Indian Revenues over the receipts from railway working on State railways and on guaranteed railways in the last 10 years?
The HON. MEMBERfurther asked the Secretary of State for India (1) what was the original estimate of loss on the working of the Indian railway system for last year, and what is the amount of the revised estimate; (2) what is the amount of capital required for carrying out the programme of railway extension in India during each of the three years 1897,1898, and 1899; and what will be the estimated amount of interest payable thereupon during each year of the period of construction; and (3) what arc the several dates at which the contracts with the Guaranteed Indian Railway Companies, now involving loss to the State, can be terminated or modified?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The State and Guaranteed Railways of India have been worked, during the ten years 1887–97, at an average profit of 5¼ per cent.; but, owing to the fall in exchange, a total net loss of Rx.7,781,914 on the State and Rx.8,679,557 on the guaranteed lines has accrued within that period. The net

645
loss in 1896–97 was estimated at Rx.2,274,300; the revised estimate was Rx.2,810,200, but, according to the latest information in my possession, it is likely to be Rx.2,665,800. The amount of capital expenditure sanctioned for each of the three years 1896–97, 1897–98, and 1898–99 is Rx.10,174,700, Rx.10,130,000, and Rx.9,360,000 respectively; and the amount payable by way of interest in each of those years may be estimated at Rx.153,000, Rx.457,000, and Rx.750,000, against which must be set the profits to be received from such portions of the new lines as may be opened within three years. The only two contracts with guaranteed companies, which in 1895–96 involved a net loss to the State, are those with the Great Indian Peninsula and the Madras Railway Companies. They terminate on June 30, 1900, and December 31, 1907, respectively.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT (1870) AMENDMENT BILL.
MR. R. B. HALDANE: On behalf of the hon. Member for Hawick Burghs (Mr. THOMAS SHAW), I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether Her Majesty's Government will be willing to grant a Return giving the names of the necessitous School Boards in Scotland which will obtain relief under the Bill now introduced into this House?
*THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I have no objection to the Return asked for. It will be prepared without delay.

CAVALRY SERVICE SQUADRONS.
MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, as the organisation of a cavalry corps has been altered to three service squadrons, commanded by Majors, in the event of one Major being seconded a Captain should be promoted to take his place, so that each service squadron may be commanded by a Field Officer, as in the case of batteries of artillery?
MR. BRODRICK: Majors are not now seconded on being employed extra-regimentally. The question of seconding them, under certain circumstances, is at present under consideration.

FEVER OUTBREAK (BELMULLET UNION).
MR. D. CRILLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the reports of extensive fever and famine in the Belmullet Union; whether he has received any special report from the officials of the Local Government Board; and what steps, if any, the Government propose to take to meet the exceptional distress existing in the Belmullet Union?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The attention of the Government has been drawn to the account published in the Freeman's Journal of the 24th inst., respecting the state of affairs in the Union of Belmullet. This account, in which an outbreak of fever on the Inniskea Islands in this Union, is attributed to the extraordinary neglect of the Government, seems to have been written in complete ignorance of the facts, which are as follows: On the 12th May, Dr. Lavan, the Dispensary Medical Officer, reported that 16 cases of fever had occurred on the islands, and he attributed the cause of the outbreak to the islanders' habit of keeping cattle and sheep in their houses and having cesspools at their doors. The Local Government Board thereupon directed the Medical Officer to furnish weekly reports as to the progress of the sick, and as to the precautions taken to prevent the spread of the disease. On the 30th May he reported that the 16 cases were those of people in good circumstances and not fit subjects for poor relief. The Board informed him that whether they were subjects for relief or not, he should visit the houses and see that all necessaries were supplied, and that disinfection was properly carried out. On the 3rd instant Dr. Lavan reported the type of fever to be very mild, that the disease appeared to be on the decline, and that he had thoroughly disinfected the houses. During the same week he disinfected the houses a second time. On the 7th instant he reported that with the exception of a few people on the islands who were destitute, the rest were in fairly good circumstances, but that they laboured under the impression, which it was difficult to remove, that fever patients should be given nothing but cold water. The

647
destitute were provided with all necessary nourishment and stimulants, and the services of two trained nurses from Dublin were requisitioned in addition to two local nurses. Three of the patients had died, and removal of the sick to hospital on the manlaind was out of the question. The trained nurses were landed on the 11th instant. On the 22nd instant the Medical Inspector of the Local Government Board visited the Islands, in company with Dr. Lavan. He states that there are, in all, 13 cases of fever of different kinds on the South Island, but that the North Island is free from fever. The Inspector considers that the attendance on, and nursing of the sick, have been sufficient up to the present. He also attended a meeting of the Board of Guardians, and pointed out to them that it was imperative on them to enforce measures for lime-washing, cleansing, and disinfection of all infected houses, and that the remedies must be continued until satisfactory results are attained. The Guardians recognise their responsibilities as the sanitary authority, and are taking measures to comply with the Inspector's recommendation. I am not aware of any famine on the island, nor can the outbreak of fever be attributable to any want of food.
MR. CRILLY: In view of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, is he prepared to maintain that it is an exaggeration to say that on Monday last—that is this day week—out of the 60 families which comprise the whole population of the Island of Inniskea, which forms part of the Union of Belmullet, no less than 45 persons were lying ill with fever?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I should say that was an exaggerated statement.

IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
MR. McCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state what was the decision given by the Irish Land Commission on the question of the Ulster custom raised before it at its recent sitting at Armagh; whether it was held to be an interest of the tenant, in addition to his interest in the improvements made by him on his holding; whether the Sub-Commissioners have in many instances expressly remarked on the
648
"Pink Paper" that the holding was subject to the Ulster custom, but that they had made no allowance to the tenant in respect of same; whether the Ulster custom has been held to be a right of the Ulster tenant, as something in excess of the right belonging to a tenant of a holding in any other part of Ireland; whether he is aware that this custom entitled the tenant to sell his holding in the open market, even where no improvement had been made by him on the holding; and why, up to the present, no allowance by way of reduced rent has been made to the tenant in Ulster in respect of this right?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The judgments of the Irish Land Commission in the 'cases referred to were delivered in open Court, and have been extensively published in the Irish newspapers. These judgments are as accessible to the hon. Member as they are to me, and it is not for me to place an interpretation upon them. The matters to which this Question refers are the subject of an appeal, and pending the result of this appeal it is obviously undesirable that the operation of the judgments of the Commissioners should be discussed by way of Questions across the Table of the House.

ILLEGAL TRAWLING (SCOTTISH WATERS).
MR. T. C. H. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether the gunboat Redwing and the cutter Active are the only Government vessels at present protecting the fisheries of Orkney and Shetland from illegal trawilng; and (2) whether the average rate of speed at which the Redwing can steam exceeds nine knots an hour?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first paragraph is yes. I believe that the speed of the Redwing is correctly stated, but I have not had time to ascertain the exact figure.

SUPPLY (IRISH EDUCATION VOTES).
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Irish Education Estimates will be taken?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I understand it will be convenient to gentlemen from Ireland that the Irish Estimates should be taken on Friday next, and I propose to make that arrangement.

SLAVERY IN ZANZIBAR.
*SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in reference to his statement made on Friday night as to "authorisation issued by the British Administrator at Mombasa with reference to the restoration of fugitive slaves"—which "documents," he said,
"were entirely new to Her Majesty's Government. We were quite unaware of their existence. We have never seen them—"
whether Questions were put to Her Majesty's Government on May 28 in which these "formal documents," were described as "habitually issued" by
"Her Majesty's representatives" "giving to the bearers permission to….search for slaves, on which permits they have levied a fee",
whether it was further stated to the Government on May 28 that
"runaway slaves, fetched by soldiers in British employ, as wanted by the Commissioner, with letters registered by the Commissioner, have been taken before British Courts for proof of ownership, and after proof, handed over to their masters ";
whether it was also stated on the same day, in a Question by myself, that
"British subjects had been compelled to surrender fugitive slaves by the British authorities, and had, in fact, surrendered great numbers of such slaves."
MR. CURZON: The answer to all the statements in the Question of the right hon. Baronet as to the contents of certain questions that have been put in this House is in the affirmative, and the explanation is as follows: —The documents to which the right hon. Member for Honiton alluded in his Question of May 28 were believed in the Foreign Office to relate to the process which I described in my speech of Thursday last and which,
650
as I stated in the House on May 28, was in operation on the mainland until December last, when fresh instructions were sent to the British Administrator not to employ force and to exercise his discretion in each case as it occurred. The Government have never seen the actual documents which were before that date in use, and were not at the time that the Question of the right hon. Baronet appeared upon the Paper aware that there was anything in them that might be of an illegal character. Since then the documents have been produced and read in the House, though I have not yet been furnished with any copies of them; and the Attorney General, who also has not seen them, has given an opinion that if they authorise the detention of slaves by British subjects, even on foreign territory, that is not in accordance with the law. ["Hear, hear!"] Under these circumstances instructions have been sent by telegraph to Her Majesty's Commissioner at Mombasa informing him that a British subject is breaking the law if he takes part in restoring to his master or otherwise depriving of his liberty any fugitive slave, and instructing him to conform his conduct to the law thus laid down. ["Hear, hear!"]
MR. J. A. PEASE: May I inform the House that I am prepared to hand over the documents in the course of the afternoon?
MR. CURZON: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman.
*SIR C. DILKE: Is it not the case that the hon. Gentleman who has just made that statement asked a Question of the Attorney General, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman replied that he had not seen the documents, upon which the hon. Gentleman produced them?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): The documents have never been shown to me either directly or indirectly. I never knew of their contents until they were read by the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries on Thursday night.
*SIR C. DILKE: I personally informed Members of the Government six weeks ago that these documents were at their disposal.

CRETE.
MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the fact that, on June 26, Mussulmans to the number of 1,200 made a sortie from the town of Candia and surprised the Christian insurgents at Kanli Kastelli, when a desperate combat ensued, entailing serious loss of life; whether it is the fact that, on June 26, the Turkish troops attacked Kanli Kastelli and massacred the garrison, and then entered the village of Rocca, where they murdered nine men; and what steps have been taken by the Great Powers for the preservation of life and property in peace now that the Greek forces have been withdrawn?
MR. CURZON: The following telegrams have been received from Sir Herbert Chermside:—
"June 26.— Grazing question has developed incidents on June 22 at Aitania, and on 24th near Voutes with mutual losses. On 24th Governor owing to administrative difficulties informed the rationed irregulars rations must cease. On 25th Christians laid ambuscade near Turkish outpost Ghazi on west, killed three Moslems, wounded three, carried off lad and over 20 beasts. Another Christian ambuscade near Spelea was unsuccessful. These incidents precipitated a Moslem raid on Kanli Kastelli, 11 miles south, a mixed village with a Moslem majority, now in the hands of the Christians with Moslem houses destroyed, it is alleged. Cavalry orderlies were sent last night to the outposts, nevertheless a considerable raid occurred, accompanied by burning, fighting, and cattle-lifting. The Moslem loss was over ten killed. Total casualties not ascertained. It is alleged that seven Christian guards were killed; that others were killed in village and 17 houses burnt; cannot yet confirm." "June 28.—The bulk of the property around Kanli Kastelli is Moslem. Total houses in village 70, of which some 20 Moslem. These, with mosque, had been previously destroyed. Moslem losses, 14 killed and 16 wounded. Raiders believed to have numbered over 200."
In consequence of these disturbances, Colonel Chermside made recommendations as to the measures to be taken by the local authorities to check raiding in future.

DESTRUCTION OF CROPS (ESSEX).
MAJOR RASCH: I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in consequence of the almost total destruction of every kind of crop over an area of seven miles in the county of Essex last
652
Thursday, the Government are prepared to send down a Commissioner to advise as to the necessity of some measures of exceptional relief?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I received my hon. Friend's notice of this Question only after I came into the House, and, of course, I am not prepared to give him an answer upon the very tragic state of circumstances which his Question reveals to the House. If he will put a Question to the President of the Board of Agriculture either tomorrow or on Thursday, the matter will before then have come under the consideration of the Government.

PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
DR. FARQUHARSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury when he intended to take the Public Health (Scotland) Bill?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYreplied it would not be taken that night, nor was he in a position to fix a date on which it could be taken. On Monday next the Report stage of the Workmen (Compensation for Accidents) Bill would be considered.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES BILL.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,)THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN, Lincolnshire, Sleaford) moved the Second Reading of this Bill.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONcharacterised the Measure as a miserable little Bill, which had been introduced by the Government in fulfilment of the much larger promise made by them to the House, and especially to the London Members. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced it said it would strengthen and improve the position of the, water consumers and give adequate redress to those who were suffering front the water companies. What London wanted, however, was a supply of water rather than a redress of grievances. The main grievance was that under certain circumstances and conditions there had been a failure on

  653
  the part of certain companies to give a proper and constant supply of water in many parts of London. In regard to the administration of the companies they had no unity, no control, and therefore no popular authority. The fact was the interests of the consumer and the shareholder were antagonistic. Not one of these matters was incidentally touched on by the Bill, which the President of the Local Government Board said would remedy the grievances of the water consumers. What was wanted while the Royal Commission was reporting was a more expeditions, inexpensive, and decisive mode of obtaining redress of individual grievances. In order to obtain the redress of minor grievances the only means the consumer had were either to go to a magistrate or appeal to the Local Government Board, and it was now proposed to add a further tribunal to give the consumer a better opportunity. But he doubted whether the tribunal selected would be of great advantage to the consumer. He doubted whether it would be more expeditious; it would be more cumbersome, and unquestionably it would be more expensive, and it would play largely into the hands of the water companies. If, under the Bill, the local authority could adopt the position of the individual it would be an advantage, but if, in the poorer parts of London, where the local rates were heavy, and the local authorities went to law, the cost would come out of the ratepayers' and consumers' pockets. If the local authorities were to be brought in they should have a measure of control and some power of carrying out their wishes. The fault he found with the Bill generally was that it would add a tribunal which would be expensive, slow, and cumbersome, and which would be scarcely used by individuals or local authorities. He would not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, but he expressed his regret that the Government, in dealing with the water companies, had put aside the question of purchase and popular control by the appointment of a Royal Commission, and had proposed an additional tribunal with no positive reform in the existing law, which should be more in favour of the consumer and against a monopoly.
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILLremarked that the First
  654
  Lord of the Treasury had said the Session ought not to pass without a solution of the question being arrived at. No one could say that the Bill was a solution of the question or anything like it. The real mischief of the position was that Parliament had conferred exorbitant powers upon the London Water Companies without imposing upon them corresponding obligations. The Bill neither restricted those powers nor enlarged those obligations. All that it attempted to do was to provide another tribunal for determining what the rights of the water consumer were, and enabled certain local authorities to bring complaints or assist the private individual to obtain the decision of any question relating to water supply of general interest. This Bill was at best only a Bill dealing with procedure, and it left the substantial rights of the water companies precisely where they were. Contracts between the water companies and the consumer were outside the purview of the Bill. They ought not to be, because in many cases the consumer was compelled to enter into a contract with the company, and the company with its vast resources on the one hand and the consumer on the other were not on equal terms. The Bill should deal with unreasonable contracts as well as the failure to perform a statutory duty. Any local authority might itself complain. It must not be lost sight of that at present there were two local authorities which could complain, any Metropolitan water authority had at present the power of complaining, and the water authorities were the City Corporation and the London County Council. No doubt during recent years it would have been competent to the London County Council to complain, but as he understood the London County Council was advised that it would not be worth while to take proceedings and to sue for penalties provided by the Act. By this Bill, however, he understood the Commission would have power to enforce its own orders. How it would be able to enforce its order, and whether in practice it would be found to be effective was of course a matter which only the future could decide. Then, with regard to the power to complain of the quantity or quality of the water, the Bill only provided an additional tribunal. As the law at present stood it was open to some 20 householders to

  655
  approach the Local Government Board, if they wished to complain of the quantity or quality of the water, and the Board might make an inquiry, and the Metropolitan authority might then sue. The only real change which was made by the Bill in this respect was to set up as a new authority, the Railway and Canal Commission. He was afraid that Commission as a body had not so far established itself very firmly in the confidence of the public—["hear, hear!"]—and he was not sure that the ratepayers of London would be satisfied with the proposal. He would like to say a good word for Clause 2 of the Bill, because he thought the ratepayers would hear with considerable satisfaction that power was to be given to a local authority to aid financially a water consumer who was fighting a case in the interests of the public. He noticed that the directors of the water companies disliked this clause very much, and therefore he was sure it was calculated to do good. The Bill did not in any way affect the subtantive rights of the companies, and the consumers of London would be bitterly disappointed if two provisions were not included. In the first place, they thought it a very hard and indefensible thing that they should have to pay for water which they did not receive, and he hoped the Government would insert a proviso to the effect that if a water company did not supply water, from whatever cause the failure might arise, it should not be entitled to payment. The second point was in regard to the practice of cutting off the supply, which had been a matter of frequent complaint. When a company cut off the supply there was the additional grievance that it charged an exorbitant sum for reconnecting the supply, and, moreover, a dwelling-house without water was by the Public Health Act, 1891, a nuisance which was liable to be dealt with summarily. It was monstrous that a water company should be empowered to cut off the water supply if the consumer did not pay his quarterly water rate in advance on the very day. He hoped the Government would introduce a provision which would relieve the unwary consumer of water of this disadvantage.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid that the two hon. Members who had endeavoured to disparage this
  656
  Bill did not represent the general opinion of London Members. The Bill did not profess to deal with the whole subject, but so far as it went it was a valuable Measure, and even the hon. Members who had spoken did not deny that it contained useful provisions. It was no small merit of the Bill that there was a general consensus that what was in the Bill was good, though the opponents wished to introduce additional provisions. It was said that the East End was in favour of purchase, but surely that was a question of price. If the water companies had been bought up, under the arrangement made some years ago by Mr. Smith, the shareholders would have had £1,100,000 in dividends more than they had actually received. He hoped that the Royal Commission would lose no time in making their Report. The hon. Member for Poplar said that the great grievance was the failure of supply which had taken place in East London, but that was due to the action of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Mr. Burdett, who spoke with such high authority, had stated—he believed with truth—that the tendency of opinion amongst those who had studied the question was in favour of control rather than of purchase. It would be found ultimately that the Government, by appointing the Commission and introducing this Bill had taken the wisest course in the interest of the ratepayers of the Metropolis and the solving of the problem of the water supply of London.
  MR. LIONEL HOLLANDthought the Bill a perfectly harmless Measure. If it brought but little benefit to the consumers it, at any rate, left their rights, such as they were, undisturbed. But the Bill would cease to be harmless, if it were to be considered for one moment to be in any way a fulfilment of the announcement contained in the Queen's Speech; if it were to be taken in any way as a satisfaction of the demand of the consumers for a more regular and a more efficient supply; if it were to be adduced as an argument for not bringing forward legislation as soon as possible for the removal of the inequalities and irregularities of the present system; or if it were to be considered as a step towards the establishment of a policy of control. He

  657
  understood from the speech of the President of the Local Government Board in introduction of the Bill, that the Government considered it a temporary Measure. But the Member for London University put a somewhat different interpretation on the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman regarded it as the first step towards a policy of control. But the Bill did not deal with any of the disadvantages or anomalies of the present system of supply, such as the power of the companies to raise their toll on a house as the rateable value went up, although they did not supply a single additional gallon of water, and were not put to a shilling of additional expense, and to compel the consumer to pay for water whether he received it or not. He need not go through the anomalies of the present system of supply. They were made manifest by the Reports of the innumerable Committees and Commissions which had sat to investigate the question. Not one of those inequalities or anomalies was even touched upon in the present Bill, and therefore if it were to be considered a bar to future legislation when the Commission reported, or as the first step in the policy of control, it would become a very harmful Bill. He accepted the Bill simply and purely as an Amendment to procedure, and he trusted that when the Commission reported there would be no delay in bringing in legislation, now long overdue, for permanently settling the problem of the water supply of London.
  MR. T. LOUGHsaid that he was afraid the Government would be known in history as the Government which had excited great hopes by the subjects which it had named to be dealt with, and the greatest disappointment by its manner of handling those subjects. The Government did not seem able to get away from this metropolitan water question. They began by causing the County Council Bills to be defeated, then they introduced a Water Trust Bill, and the question appeared in the Queen's Speech. And now, in fulfilment of all this promise, this miserable Bill was introduced. He could not see what benefit the inhabitants of London were to derive from the interference of the Railway Commissioners in the Water Question. What had the Commissioners done? They were one of the standing jokes of the Estimates. But the Water Question
  658
  was urgent, as the conduct of the Government and the sufferings of the people of the Metropolis showed. Last year there was a famine in the East of London, and this year there had been one in the South, and these famines would frequently recur under the present system. The attitude of the companies—who in the last few years had come to Parliament to ask for power to raise nine millions of money—showed that they recognised how inadequate the present arrangements were. Purchase on a broad and fair basis to the owners of property was the best way of solving this Question; and he hoped that the present Bill would not be accepted as a substitute for that great policy. As to the Bill, there was nothing in it.
  MR. EDWARD BOULNOISsaid that he did not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill; but as it had been introduced as a public Bill the water companies lost their opportunity of being heard on the various points raised. The companies had no need to fear any investigation. They had endeavoured to carry out the statutory obligations in the past, and if they did not do so in the future they were willing that the consumer should have a Court before which he could lay his complaint. At the same time, the provision allowing the local authority to aid the consumer out of the rates in carrying his complaint before the Courts required very serious consideration. The companies disliked that provision, because they thought it would lead to frivolous complaints being brought before the Courts. It was, in effect, the doctrine of maintenance, and why should it be applied to the water companies only, and not to the railway and gas companies, and perhaps to the London General Omnibus Company? He would suggest the insertion of a safeguard, requiring the local authority to obtain the sanction of the Local Government Board or of the Attorney General. Clause 3 would require careful consideration. The consumer in the outside areas would be put to considerable expense in altering his fittings for a constant supply. He should suggest certain amendments in Committee, and, as they would not interfere with the principle of the Bill, he hoped they would be favourably received.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid that it was hardly accurate to describe the Bill as having been introduced in fulfilment of the promises of the Government last year. It was introduced in fulfilment of a promise which he gave at the beginning of the Session. The Leader of the House had in a letter expressed the strong desire of the Government to arrive at some solution of this question at the earliest opportunity, and the Government had done what was wisest and best for that end. They had appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into a number of important subjects intimately connected with this Question which had never been thoroughly thrashed out, and, in addition, they had introduced this Bill as a more or less temporary measure pending the Report of the Commission. An hon. Member had charged him with having spoken of this Bill in the most grandiloquent terms on its introduction. What he actually said was that it was "a simple and modest Bill" and a "very short one." He added: —
  "The new powers and duties which we are conferring upon the local authorities must not be underrated, because, in my opinion, they are very considerable."
  To that opinion he still took the liberty of adhering. Some hon. Members had done their best to disparage the Measure, but he supposed that was only an assertion of their position sitting in opposition. Even they, however, were compelled to admit that there was, at all events, some good in the Bill, and the Government had no reason whatever to complain of the general reception it had met with in the House. ["Hear, hear!"] But the Bill did a good deal more than appeared on the surface. It was no small matter to bring in all the local authorities and to give them power to initiate complaints without waiting for the initiative of individual consumers. It was said this power was not new, but whereas 20 complaints were now required before the Local Government Board could take notice of it, under the. Bill a complaint could be made by any single individual. Very often, he thought, the water companies had been unfairly attacked, and he would give an instance. It was alleged that the Lambeth Water Company had seized the opportunity of the Jubilee to cut off the supply of the people.
  660
  As soon as information reached him that there was difficulty in that quarter, he made it his business to inquire at once, and, so far as he had any knowledge of the subject, he was at a loss to conceive how the difficulty could have been avoided, no matter in whose hands the control of the water was. What occurred was this. There was an extraordinary and quite abnormal invasion of fish-spawn in the river. This was always a difficulty, he understood, which arose every year more or less during June, but this year it was quite exceptional. The previous cold weather was supposed to have delayed the spawn. Then came two days of extreme heat, and this was followed by the abnormal invasion of spawn which blocked the filters, and quite prohibited any further supply of filtered water until the spawn had been removed from the filter beds. Even with a large staff of men this work took some time, and that, he believed, was the reason of the dearth of water which occurred only a few days ago. Where the companies did their duty the Bill would be inoperative; where they did not, they would have a formidable body of local authorities always ready to bring them to task, and fight them for any transgression of which they might have been guilty on perfectly even terms. The position, therefore, would be very different from that of the unfortunate individual consumer in the past. As to the suggestion that individuals would have difficulty in persuading the local authorities to act, he doubted it very much. Did the hon. Member opposite, who had some experience of the London County Council, think it would be very hard, when a legitimate opportunity arose, to persuade that body to take action against the metropolitan water companies, for whom they had no very great affection and with whom they had a good many outstanding quarrels? With regard to suggested amendments, from whatever quarter of the House, he could only say that the Government were prefectly prepared to give them, one and all, the most careful consideration.
  MR. JAMES STUARTdesired information on two points—first, the sort of cases in which the promoters thought the Bill would be applicable; and secondly, the nature of the new tribunal. The utility of the

  661
  tribunal would depend largely on whether it was an expensive one or not. It had been alleged that the Railway Commission was an extremely expensive body. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: "No!"] That should be denied, for it was clear it would be a very serious thing for either an individual consumer or a local authority to appear before a body where very large counsels' fees might be paid by the water companies and the costs ultimately thrown on the complainants. The right hon. Gentleman, with a courtesy which they all recognised, endeavoured to make out that the promises made by the Government were not involved in the Bill at all. He altogether denied that what the Government had done in connection with the Royal Commission— which was the only thing they had done except to throw out the late Water Purchase Bills— was in any sense a fulfilment of what all sides must have been led to expect. He held in his hand an extract from the letter of the Conservative Member for East London, addressed last August to the First Lord of the Treasury, and in his reply the right hon. Gentleman, speaking on behalf of the Government, said, "We strongly feel that next Session ought not to pass without a solution being arrived at." There was nothing about "a step towards a solution;" it was "without a solution being arrived at." When the right hon. Gentleman made that statement in the letter it was very generally received with approval, and accepted as an indication that the Government had risen to the occasion and recognised their duty, seeing that the danger was not to be avoided by any other means, and the whole question of London water supply was urgent and ought to be dealt with without delay. In the Queen's Speech at the opening of the Session there was a paragraph to the effect that a Bill would be submitted to the House for improving the arrangements for the water supply of the Metropolis, and he asked was this the promised Bill, or should they look for another Bill. Was the Bill now introduced the fulfilment of the promise or not? If it was not, then where was the Bill and why had it been suspended? Had the Government altered their minds since they prepared the Queen's Speech? Or if this was the Bill indicated, where
  662
  had the right hon. Gentleman's argument vanished to? Was the present Bill a mere emanation from the right hon. Gentleman's speech on the London County Council Bills? Was it a fulfilment of the promise in the Queen's Speech? These were questions he would like to have answered? As to this Bill, he certainly should not oppose it. It was a Bill that was neither here nor there;" it was a slight, small, unimportant Measure, and nobody would long to make it anything else. The position seemed to be this, that the Bill was an essential part of the Government promise, but they could not go further just now, for they had tied their own hands, and it was just this position into which the Government had brought themselves of which he complained. Let the House look at the situation. For many years there had been a series of Committees and Commissions on this London water question, and all undoubtedly pointed in one direction, purchase by some municipal authority until there was the famous and all-important Committee of 1891, presided over by the present Home Secretary. It was a strong Committee, and it investigated the whole of the question from the point of view of joint management, from the point of view of constituting a new authority, from the point of view of simple purchase, and the Committee recommended that the London County Council should be empowered, or practically obliged, for that was what it came to, to consider the whole question and bring in a Measure for constituting a water authority, and if it should constitute itself a water authority, or propose to do so in this Measure, it was bound to purchase the water companies by arbitration. The Council brought in a Bill to carry this out, and the Government opposed that Bill. They were last year under the glamour of some idea that they could do something other than that Sir Mathew White Ridley's. Committee recommended. They still believed that some middle course was possible, but there were some Members on the other side of the House who saw better than the Government, and knew this could not be so. This year, when the Government had to face the question straightly, instead of trying to find a middle course, they were obliged to

  663
  arrange a Commission, which Commission should enter into the very things Sir M. W. Ridley's Committee reported upon. The Government had landed themselves in an impassable position; they could not get out of that position, and they appointed a Commission to consider the whole thing over again when it was ripe for solution. So they had tied their hands, and could not do anything but bring in this exceedingly small, unimportant Measure. He could not accept the right hon. Gentleman's history of how the Bill came to be introduced, when he said it arose out of his pledge given when he was calling upon the House to throw out the London County Council's Water Purchase Bills. The First Lord of the Treasury said the Session ought not to pass without a solution of this question being arrived at, and the Queen's Speech contained a promise of a Bill to improve the arrangements of the water supply of the Metropolis. Was this Measure a fulfilment of that promise, or was it not?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,)did not rise to follow the hon. Gentleman's survey of the question and the comments on various topics he had introduced into his speech, but to answer specific questions as to the cases which, as he conceived, would be dealt with by the Bill. At the present time, of course, proceedings could be undertaken by twenty water consumers, and by application to a magistrate, to enforce what he might call the minor duties of water companies; but there was not any ready tribunal for dealing with greater questions. If hon. Members would look at the second sub-section of the first clause it would be seen that it was contemplated that such questions as the quantity and quality of water supplied, and of a constant supply, should be dealt with by the Railway Commission. Those who had studied the subject would agree that a magistrate, or even an arbitrator, except under special circumstances, were not the best tribunals for the settlement of such questions as these. Hon. Members had spoken of the great expense of proceedings before the Railway Commission, but they bad been led into exaggeration on this point, and their statements were absolutely contradicted by cases within his experience.
  664
  There was a safeguard in the Bill which was excluded from the Act of 1888, that all costs would be within the discretion of the tribunal, and everybody would know perfectly well that if the Commission found there was good foundation for the complaint they would throw the whole cost of proceedings on the Company. Under the present law there was no practical means of raising such questions as the quantity and quality of water, or of adequate supply, except by proceedings for mandamus in the High Court, and it would not be suggested that this procedure would be less costly. He did not wish to repeat what his right hon. Friend had said. For serious causes of complaint the Bill offered a remedy, and as such he asked the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  MR. JOHN LOWLESsaid though he, in common with other London Members, would have liked a more comprehensive dealing with the subject, he had come to the conclusion that it was wiser to have an inquiry by a Commission of experts, because the question, after exhaustive inquiry, might be settled once for all. He did not minimise the importance of the present Measure, and it would be assessed at its proper value by those who had felt the effects of the water famine. It gave individual consumers an opportunity to set in motion power of inquiry into the shortcomings of water companies. The whole question of water supply fully deserved serious consideration, and East End Members felt this strongly; but the feeling would be general that the Government had acted wisely in trying to settle the question conclusively by means of an Inquiry by a Commission of experts. Meantime he regarded this means by which individual consumers would be able to set in motion power to compel water companies to fulfil their obligations as exceedingly useful. It would have a preventive effect, the knowledge of such a power would stimulate the anxiety of companies to meet the requirements of consumers.
  LORD HUGH CECILsaid there was an advantage in the proposed mode of procedure over the method of expropriation which had so many advocates on the other side of the House. Directly they entered on the question of

  665
  expropriation they involved all questions of interference with rights of property, necessitating the utmost possible caution against raising the opposition not only of those whose property was immediately interfered with, but of those who might think their turn would come next, and who would therefore join hands in resisting the proposal. Moreover, the dislike of expropriation was intensified by mistrust of the London County Council, and a reluctance to do anything that would throw the administration of the whole of the London water supply into its hands. It was, he thought, a difficulty which was likely to occur over and over again in the municipal government of London that the extraordinary want of tact which had marked the County Council's manœuvres had created a prejudice against it which would go far to destroy any advantages which might have been expected from a great popular institution like that. So long as it went on masquerading as London's Parliament, so long as it was inflated by the spirit that animated The Daily Chronicle, so long would it be found that Parliament, and many persons outside Parliament, were extremely reluctant to increase, in any respect whatever, the authority intrusted to the County Council. If they would be more wisely guided, if they would adopt an attitude of greater humility —[Opposition laughter]—and would be content to be only the first municipal corporation of the country, then, certainly, it would be possible to extend very largely their powers with a just confidence that those powers would be wisely used. An advantage of proceeding by the method of control was that they controlled the companies and they compelled them to do their duty. No question of property would arise; no question of whether a new authority was to be constituted which might be distrusted, as was the case with the County Council. They had the simple method of compelling the existing authority to do its duty, and therefore he, for his part, was very glad indeed that the Government had seen fit to adopt the method of control rather than some more ambitious kind. He hoped that when this Bill was passed, there would be no reluctance whatever to use its provisions and compel the water companies at all times to do their duty. ["Hear, hear!"] There was one
  666
  power which he thought might have been added to the Bill, and which, perhaps, the Government would consider when they came to the Committee stage. This was the granting to the Railway and Canal Commission the power to deal with the question of water rates in so many cases as the water had been defectively supplied, whether in point of quality or quantity. Nothing had struck people as more conspicuously unfair and unreasonable in connection with the water companies than their action in exacting the full measure of their rates when, through frost or drought, they had been unable to supply the full measure of water. It would be an advantage if a clause could be inserted in the Bill which would enable the Commission to make an order for diminished water rates in proportion to the diminution that had taken place in the quantity of water supplied. He thought that would be an eminently fair regulation, and would give a sensible relief to the aggrieved water consumer, and it would act as a kind of automatic penalty of which the water companies would be afraid, and which they would take the utmost trouble to escape. It would become more desirable, in the Committee stage, to investigate somewhat more at length the question whether the tribunal to which these powers were to be intrusted was nearly so expensive as had been suggested by the hon. Member for Shoreditch, but, as he was glad to hear, the Attorney General denied. If it was the fact that it was an expensive tribunal, it would surely seem that the expense must arise from some cause which could be regulated, and which might, therefore, form the subject for amendment in this Bill. A clause might be inserted similar to the one in the Clergy Discipline Act of 1892, under which a small judicial committee were given power to make rules so that they might reduce the expense and facilitate the process of litigation as much as possible. Some amendments of the kind he had indicated would, he thought, improve the Bill, but he was convinced that he was only reflecting the opinion of his constituents when he said that the great majority of those who had complained, and very reasonably complained, of the action of the water companies in the past would feel the Government had taken a

  667
  great step towards removing their grievances in introducing a Measure which would establish effective control over these companies.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed for Thursday.

  CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.

  FOREIGN PRISON-MADE GOODS BILL.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [17th May,], "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, Etc." Debate resumed.
  MR. J. H. DALZIELopposed the Motion on the ground that it was a. departure from what had been the settled practice of the House for many years. The First Lord of the Treasury had been the greatest champion in the House of the principle that controversial Bills should be kept within the area of the House itself, and should not be committed to Standing Committees upstairs. He thought no one would deny that this was a controversial Bill, and therefore it should be kept within the scope of the House itself. There was another reason why this Bill should be kept within the scope of the House. This Bill represented one of the great social Measures which the Government placed before the country at the last General Election, and in view of the importance thus given to the matter, the constituents ought to be in the position to see exactly how the proposal was received by the House, and to have the opportunity of considering the merits of the various Amendments that might be moved from different sides of the House. Then, again, the period of the Session at which they had arrived told strongly in favour of keeping the Bill in the House. They were now practically at the beginning of July, and in view of the work which the Grand Committee had already transacted, and of the very important Bills that were still waiting for its consideration, he thought this
  668
  Bill ought to be dealt with by the House itself. They had had no reason given for sending the Bill upstairs, and as they were not too busily employed there they ought to keep it in the House.
  MR. R. B. HALDANEsaid he found himself in agreement with his hon. Friend on this matter. On this Bill there arose a question which, though a matter for Committee, was one of such great importance that he did not think it could be adequately discussed except in Committee of the whole House. This Bill proposed to shut out goods produced in foreign prisons under whatever conditions they were produced. If they were produced and put on the market, not at a low price, but at the full market price, then they were to be shut out just as though they were put on the market and competed for at a low price and under conditions which would interfere with other producers. That was a question that affected them very closely in this country. Those of them who had taken an interest in prison reform—and he was a member of the Committee which reported upon this subject—felt most strongly that they would never adequately improve the prisons unless they offered opportunities for the men sent there to practise at a trade, acquiring habits of industry, and leaving the prison better men than they went in. This was a subject in which there had been difficulties with the trades unions in days gone by. What they had said was that these goods were put on the markets at low rates and under conditions—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is discussing the merits of the Bill itself to an extent beyond what is admissible under this Motion.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he had transgressed unwittingly. He was referring to this by way of illustration of the fact that there would arise in the Committee stage the very important question whether the Bill should apply so as to shut out goods, under all circumstances, that were produced in foreign prisons. If it did, it would be to put an immense difficulty in the way of those who had the cause of reform in British prisons at heart. Ho would therefore join in the appeal of his hon. Friend to the Government that they would take this Bill under circumstances when they could examine this question fully.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESjoined in the appeal which had been made to the Government to leave the Bill in the hands of the House. This was a controversial Measure, and one, moreover, which involved very great and important principles; it would result in a form of protection—he did not say it would be mischievous—and entail the adoption of completely new methods. In future the Board of Customs would have to go into the origin of a thing, and instead of being Commissioners of Customs they would be a sort of prize court. It was a tremendous alteration, one so large that no Committee upstairs ought to be empowered to consider it and decide upon it, but it certainly ought to be left to the House as a whole. He had no confidence whatever in the Standing Committees upstairs, and he for one would hesitate to leave it in the power of a Committee upstairs to say whether the very important new principles contained in the Measure should or should not be applied. The Standing Committees were originally intended to deal with matters of secondary importance and of great complication and detail. They never were supposed to be bodies to whom the House should hand over the settlement of great principles. This Bill was essentially one of principle, and therefore it ought to be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he was not sure he entirely concurred in the description of the Bill which had just been given by his hon. Friend. The hon. Member had used very strong adjectives in describing the enormous magnitude and importance of the principles which, in his view, were involved in the single clause of which the Bill consisted. He thought his hon. Friend had rather over-magnified the novelty of the departure the Bill constituted, and, if this were the occasion on which to argue the doctrine the hon. Gentleman had laid down, he believed he would be able to show the hon. Member had somewhat inflated the importance of the problems the Bill raised. In suggesting that the Bill should go to a Grand Committee, the Government had no desire to in any way violate the principles which had been laid down by successive occupants of the place from which he was now speaking with regard to the
  670
  functions and duties which should be thrown on Grand Committees. He thought the hon. Gentleman who initiated the Debate went rather beyond the mark when he said that this was a Bill which divided Parties, and he was also of opinion that the hon. and learned Member for Haddingtonshire had slightly exaggerated the bearing of the Measure. But he frankly admitted that when three Gentlemen from different parts of the House brought forward different sets of arguments which appealed to them and all of which converged upon the one conclusion—that the Bill was not of a character that ought to go to a Grand Committee—he did not know that there was anything in the condition of the business of the House which should require the Government with undue obstinacy to adhere to their suggestion. ["Hear, hear!"] As there appeared to be a general feeling that the House themselves would prefer to discuss the Bill in Committee, and as they might hope the discussion in Committee would not be of a very prolonged character, he would be glad to assent to the committal of the Bill to a Committee of the whole House.[Cheers.]
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY moved that the Bill be put down for Committee to-morrow.
  MR. DALZIELhoped it was not intended that the Committee should be taken to-morrow.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: It shall not be the principal business to-morrow, but the second Order.
  MR. DALZIELpointed out that no Amendments had been drafted with a view to going into Committee to-morrow.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYthereupon named Thursday for the Committee stage.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for Thursday.

BERRIEW SCHOOL, BILL.
Adjourned Debate on Third Reading [24th May] further adjourned till Tomorrow.

POLICE (PROPERTY) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR in the Chair.]
Clause 1,—
POWER TO MAKE ORDERS WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY IN POSSESSION OF POLICE.
(1.) Where any property has come into the possession of the police in connection with any criminal charge or under Section sixty-six of the Metropolitan Police Act.1839, Section forty-eight of the Act of the Session of the second and third years of Her present Majesty, chapter ninety-four (local), for regulating the Police in the City of London, or Section one hundred and three of the Larceny Act, 1861, or Section thirty-four of the Pawnbrokers Act, 1872, a metropolitan police magistrate sitting at Bow Street within the metropolitan police district and a court of summary jurisdiction elsewhere may, on application either by an officer of police or by a claimant of the property, make an order for the delivery of the property to the person appearing to the magistrate or court to be the owner thereof, or, if the owner cannot be ascertained, make such order with respect to the property as to the magistrate or court may seem meet.
(2.) An order under this section shall not affect the right of any person to take within six months from the date of the order legal proceedings against any person in possession of property delivered by virtue of the order for the recovery of the property, but on the expiration of those six months the right shall cease.
MR. PICKERSGILL MR. PICKERSGILL moved to omit from Sub-section 1, the words "sitting at Bow Street." He said that the object of the Bill was to give power to decide the right of possession to property in the hands of the police, and against that he had nothing to say. There was, however, to be only
one Court within the Metropolitan Police area having jurisdiction under the Bill. That would be inconvenient and wrong from the point of view of policy. It would be obviously inconvenient for a complainant living, say, 20 miles from Charing Cross, to come to Bow Street to establish his right to the possession of property. From the point of view of policy, if they gave jurisdiction to one magistrate only the inevitable effect would be that that magistrate would have to take an official or a stereotyped view of the matter. If his Amendment were adopted any magistrate sitting in the Metropolis, would have jurisdiction under the Bill.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,)said he had no doubt the words "sitting at Bow Street" were put in with some object, but as there appeared to be reason in the Amendment he would accept it subject to revision on Report.
Amendment agreed to; Bill reported; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

ISLE OF MAN (CHURCH BUILDING ACTS) BILL [H.L.]
Order for Second Reading Read.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be now Read a Second time." The House divided: —Ayes, 52; Noes, 65. —(Division List—No. 249—appended.)

AYES.

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

Fisher, William Hayes

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W(Leeds)

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Bethell, Captain

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Bonsor, Henry cosmo Orme

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

Stephens, Henry Charles

Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn)

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Helder, Augustus

Strauss, Arthur

Caldwell, James

Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Hopkinson, Alfred

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Cecil, Lord Hugh

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Thorburn, Walter

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverp'l.)

Thornton, Percy M.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Webster, Sir R. E. (Isle of Wight)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset)

Williams, Joseph Powell- (Birm.)

Currie, Sir Donald

Lorne, Marquess of

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Davies, Horatio D. (Chatham)

Lowles, John

Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

Maxwell, Sir Herbert E.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Drucker, A.

Nicholson, William Graham

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir, J (Manc'r)

Purvis, Robert

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir MatthewW.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Hedderwick, Thos. Charles H.

Rickett, J. Compton

Ambrose, Robert (Mayo, W.)

Hogan, James Francis

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Horniman, Frederick John

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Kilbride Denis

Robson, William Snowdon

Burt, Thomas

Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

Lambert, George

Scott, Charles Prestwich

Clough, Walter Owen

Leng, Sir John

Souttar, Robinson

Collery, Bernard

Lough, Thomas

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Colville, John

Macaleese, Daniel

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Crilly, Daniel

McDermott, Patrick

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

McEwan, William

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

Daly, James

McKenna, Reginald

Tully, Jasper

Davitt, Michael

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Wedderburn, Sir William

Dike, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Donelan, Captain A.

Morgan, W. Pritchard (Merthyr)

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Morton, Edw. John Chalmers

Wilson, John (Govan)

Fenwick, Charles

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

Wilson, Jos H. (Middlesbrough)

Ffrench, Peter

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

Young, Samuel

Gilhooly, James

O'Ccnnor,James (Wicklow,W.)

Yoxall, James Henry

Greville, Captain

Owen, Thomas

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

Parnell, John Howard

TELLERS FOR THE NOES. Mr. Dalziel and Mr. Lloyd- George.

Haldane Richard Burdon

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Hazell, Walter

Power, Patrick Joseph

The declaration of the numbers, indicating that the Bill had been lost, was received with ironical Opposition cheers.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY, rising immediately, said: It is evident that the attempt to carry on business during the Jubilee celebration is not wholly unattended with difficulties. In these circumstances, I beg to move "That this House do now adjourn." [Ministerial cheers, laughter, and Opposition cries of "No!"]
Question put, "That this House do now adjourn." The House divided:— Ayes, 58; Noes, 64.—(Division List, No. 250.)

SUPPLY [25TH JUNE].
Report deferred till To-morrow.
POST OFFICE CONSOLIDATION BILL [H.L.]
Committee deferred till Monday 12th July.
SUPPLY [18TH JUNE] REPORT.
Consideration of Postponed Resolution deferred till To-morrow.
POST OFFICE (SITES) [EXPENSES].
Committee thereupon deferred till Thursday.
SUPPLY.
Committee deferred till Wednesday.

LAND TRANSFER BILL [H.L.]
On the Order for the Second Reading of this Bill,
MR. HALDANEasked the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposed to take this Bill?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Not now. [Loud laughter.]
MR. HALDANEreminded the right hon. Gentleman that on a former occasion he had referred to the Bill as a non-contentious Measure.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: There are differences between that occasion and the present of a most important character. [Laughter.]
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

PRISONS BILL.
On the Order for the Second Reading of this Bill,
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved that the Order be read and discharged, and the Bill withdrawn. He said there was no hope of passing the Bill this Session.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

BICYCLES (IRELAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ALDERSHOT AND FARNBOROUGH) BILL.
Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [1st April] read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
BURIAL GROUNDS LOANS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [11th May] further adjourned till Tomorrow.
STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES' JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
POOR LAW BILL.
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
DANGEROUS PERFORMANCES BILL.
Committee deferred till To-morrow.
SCHOOL BOARDS' EXPENSES BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
WAYS AND MEANS.
Committee deferred till Wednesday.
LAW OF EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL CASES) BILL.
Committee deferred till Thursday.
PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), deferred till Tomorrow.
FINANCE BILL.
Committee deferred till To-morrow.
WORKMEN (COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS) BILL.
Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) ACT (1877) AMENDMENT BILL.
Committee deferred till Friday.
VEHICLES (LIGHTS) BILL.
Considered in Committee; Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday.

EDUCATION ENDOWMENTS (IRELAND) ACT (1885) AMENDMENT BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR in the Chair.]
Clause 1,—

APPOINTMENT OF NEW COMMISSIONERS IN CASE OF DISAGREEMENT.
Where by reason of the disagreement of the Judicial Commissioners under the Educational Endowments (Ireland) Act 1885, herein-after referred to as "the said Act," a scheme has not been settled or submitted to, or approved by, the Lord Lieutenant in any case, it shall be lawful to the Lord Lieutenant to request the Lord High Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice of England to nominate and appoint Commissioners for the carrying of the said Act into execution in such case.
MR. W. JOHNSTON MR. W. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.) moved "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
MR. VESEY KNOXexpressed the hope that his hon. Friend would not persist in his Motion. The Bill was a simple Measure; it had been fully discussed in Ireland, and there was nothing in it to call for a long discussion in Committee.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,)said he could not accept the statement that this was a simple Bill. When the Bill was introduced by the hon. Member for Louth the general principle of it was accepted by the Government; that was to say, the Government were prepared to allow the Second Reading to pass, but they did not pledge themselves to support the further stages of the Bill. That made it incumbent on the Government to put down such Amendments as would make the Bill a satisfactory Measure. The Government, however, had been unable to do that. He was, therefore, entirely unable to accept the statement of the hon. Member opposite that the Bill was a simple one, and he should support, and ask the House to support, the Motion of his hon. Friend.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESdesired to appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were now the provisional Government of the country—[laughter]—not to push their advantage too far. Hon. Gentlemen had proved that for the moment they held the Government in the hollow of their hand, and he would therefore appeal to them to allow hon. Members on the Government side, who were not sufficiently informed on the subject of the Bill to take up its consideration now, to go away and instruct themselves, to go over to Ireland if necessary—[laughter]—and gather information there, and then come back to the consideration of the Bill. He trusted that the majority were not going to be so unreasonable as to refuse to listen to the voice of reason. The Measure dealt with the future of the
678
education of every child in Ireland, and with the future position of every teacher. [Laughter.]
MR. KNOX, on a point of order, suggested that the hon. Member's remarks were not relevant.
THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR), held that the hon. Member was in order.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES, continuing, said he was urging in favour of the Motion to report progress, on the ground that hon. Members were insufficiently furnished with information on the subject of the Bill. This was the 29th Order of the Day. Who would have supposed that morning that the House would have hurried through 28 Orders of the Day while the Irish Members were away attending to their superior social duties? [Laughter.] How could they do justice to Ireland in a Bill of this sort at a time when the House was almost empty? [Opposition cries of "No, no!"] The House was not adequately furnished with Members to take into consideration a Bill like this. He thought he had given adequate reasons why the Bill should not be proceeded with now, and if the hon. Member opposite went to a Division he should undoubtedly give his vote against him. ["Hear, hear!"]
Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
The Committee divided: Ayes, 69, Noes, 70.—(Division List, No. 251.)
The announcement of the numbers was received with loud Nationalist cheers and laughter.
MR. JOHNSTONopposed the clause. He said that the object of the promoters of the Bill was to amend the Educational Endowments (Ireland) Act 1885, in such a way as to bring about an alteration in the administration of the Erasmus Smith Endowments. The hon. and learned Member for North Louth and

679
his Friends wanted to throw open to Roman Catholics endowments which were intended exclusively for the Protestants of Ireland. The Erasmus Smith endowments were intended to benefit Protestants and to encourage the conversion of Roman Catholic children to a better faith. [Cries of "Oh!"] There was no reason why in the year of the Queen's Jubilee the intentions of the founder of these endowments should be set aside. He might remind the Committee that Her Majesty had taken an oath to maintain the Protestant form of religion. [Nationalist cries of "Oh!" and laughter].
THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR)called attention to the purport of the clause, and pointed out that the hon. Member was going into matters which were hardly relevant to the section.
MR. JOHNSTONsaid that he was aware of the purport of the clause, but there was a good deal behind it. [Laughter.] He trusted that the clause would be negatived.
LORD HUGH CECILasked whether, in view of the numbers in the recent Division, and the peculiar circumstances of the case, it would be an abuse of the Rules of the House to move again that progress be reported?
THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR)did not think that it would be quite seemly to put a Motion of that kind so soon after the recent decision of the Committee. ["Hear, hear!"]
*MR. ALFRED HOPKINSONasked for an explanation of the clause, and said that it would only be fair to the Committee to explain it. He doubted whether any Members on his side of the House understood the clause correctly. Apparently it was proposed to make a totally new departure in legislation and to give an appeal from an Irish judicial body to an English tribunal in matters relating to the appointment of Education Commissioners. Why was it that the Members who were constantly asking that the jurisdiction of Irish
680
authorities might be extended desired in this particular case that special jurisdiction should in effect be given to English officials? Such a change of front naturally created some suspicion, and it was hardly treating the Committee with respect to make proposals of this kind without explanation.
MR. GERALD BALFOURexpressed astonishment that the appeal of the hon. Member had not met with a response. [Derisive laughter, and an HON. MEMBER: "The Chief Secretary responds!"] The hon. Member was right in saying that this clause as it stood was almost unintelligible—nay, he might go further and say that it was not fully understood even by the hon. Member at present in charge of the Bill. He thought that, in the absence of the hon. Member who introduced the Bill, the hon. Member for Derry might at least have done the House the compliment of telling it what was really meant by the proposal. If a question like that contained in the Bill was to be submitted afresh to another tribunal, he ventured to say that the tribunal chosen should not be two new Commissioners, but that it should be the Appeal Court in Ireland itself, and that there should be a further appeal to the House of Lords. This was a matter in which the Protestants of Ireland had the deepest interest; and he did not think it would be fair or right to them that the decision of this matter should be placed in the hands of two new Commissioners, who, so far as the Bill was concerned, need not even be Judges. He therefore opposed the clause.
MR. WOLFFsaid that the Protestants of the North of Ireland took the strongest interest in this Question, and they relied on the Government not to sanction the alteration contemplated by the Bill. They would do their best to prevent the Bill from passing, and at present he opposed the clause.
MR. KNOXnow understood that after strenuous efforts the Government had been enabled to regain their mastery in

681
the House. [Laughter.] He found, however, that the Government had been placed, not for the first time, in the position of opposing in June what they had supported in January. He did not wish to press too far the advantage he and his hon. Friends had gained, and, therefore, he moved "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again." [Laughter.]
Question put, and agreed to.
Committee report progress; to sit again To-morrow.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he understood that a change, not less substantial because it had no manifestation in the Division Lobby, had taken place in the affairs of the House—[Opposition laughter]—and he moved, "That the House do now adjourn."
MR. J. SAMUELappealed to the right hon. Gentleman to allow the Motion for the Steam Engines and Boilers (Persons in Charge) Bill to be referred to the Standing Committee on Trade to be proceeded with now, the Debate having been adjourned on February 17.
MR. LLOYD-GEOGEhoped that the Leader of the House would respond to this appeal. The Measure was of importance industrially, and it had been Read a Second time this Session. A strong feeling existed in favour of it among the working classes of the country, because it affected the lives and the limbs of workmen employed under dangerous conditions. What advantage was to be gained by adjourning the House at that early hour? Was there any reason of State? The right hon. Gentleman had not adduced a single reason in favour of his Motion. Hon. Members had enjoyed their holiday over
682
the Jubilee, and other persons in the community had returned to work. [Cries of "Divide," and "Order!"] The Twelve o'clock Rule had been suspended repeatedly in order to force measures through this Session, but now with five hours ahead of them for work the Government proposed to adjourn rather than deal with a Bill affecting the working classes. He hoped that this fact would be remembered by the constituents of hon. Members opposite, and especially by the constituents of the hon. Member for Haggerston. [Cheers.] They would not, he hoped, also forget to remember that with such a Bill before them the Leader of the House got up and contemptuously moved the adjournment without an argument being adduced in favour of the Motion. Thus, when the interests of the Church were concerned, and when there was an opportunity of passing a Bill reforming the administration of the Church in London, the right hon. Gentleman opposite said, "No, let us go to a theatre or a dinner party," instead of legislating for the Church and the working man. He opposed the adjournment.
MR. LOUGHsaid that he thought the right hon. Gentleman might look favourably on the suggestion which had been thrown out, and take the next two Orders, both of which were practically unopposed. They had been before the House frequently, and were agreed to in principle by both Parties.
MR. DALZIELasked the right hon. Gentleman to consider that private Members had had very few opportunities this Session. At the very commencement of the Session, for reasons that were considered satisfactory by the House, the right hon. Gentleman thought it necessary to take Tuesday evening, and at a later period he took Wednesday. During the last few weeks there had been practically no opportunity of moving a private Member's Bill, and he appealed to the right hon. Member whether he would not in this matter make a slight

683
concession to the Opposition. He was sure he would agree that they had paid every deference to the wishes of the Government in the course of to-night; and he hoped, as the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to get away, and they were also anxious to get away, provided they could get the Bills they were anxious to see passed, he would be willing to consider the suggestion which had been put before him. He wished to point out that the two next Bills were practically non-contentious. Surely the right hon. Gentleman could allow the Archdeaconry of London Bill to be read a Second time. It was a Bill promoted by Members of his own side of the House as well as on the opposite side, and there were special and urgent reasons why it should be passed in the course of the present year. It was a Bill which he was sure the right hon. Gentleman himself would support if he was made acquainted with its provisions. With regard to the Bill of his hon. Friend, it had been accepted by the House, and all they asked was that it should be committed to the Standing Committee upstairs. If the right hon. Gentleman would make these small concessions, he would not be detained long.
*MR. J. C. WEIRsaid if the right hon. Gentleman was in the mood for making concessions, he hoped he would consider the Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act (1886) Amendment Bill, and the School Board Electorate (Scotland) Bill. He had endeavoured for the last two Sessions to get these Bills through, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would concede either the one or the other, or, better still, both. [Laughter.]
MR. GIBSON BOWLEStrusted the right hon. Gentleman would not make any concessions. [Cheers.] As for saying that he had given no reason for the adjournment, he had given the best possible reason, namely, that there were now more Members on his side of the House than there were some time ago.
684
[Laughter.] He would remind hon. Gentlemen that in the hour of their triumph they exercised their power without mercy. The measure of their iniquity was now full. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman should remember their misdeeds in the past when a contrary state of things obtained. He certainly ought not to give way on a Bill which he was informed was most highly contentious. If the conduct of hon. Gentlemen opposite had been just, not to say generous, he might have given way on a non-contentious Bill; but he could not allow their appeal to be made without making an appeal in a contrary direction. [Cheers.]
DR CLARKsaid the two Bills in question were very important Bills, and they were practically non-contentious. ["No, no!"] They had been before the House for years, and had been modified, the one by Members on one side of the House and the other by Members on the other side. Both Bills had been discussed and approved; but the half-past five o'clock Rule prevented their being sent to Committee; and now there was time to do it, the right hon. Gentleman refused, in a congested House, to send these two Bills forward for further consideration—for that was all they asked. He could understand the Government feeling a little sore after being three times defeated, but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give way.
DR AMBROSEsuggested that the Government and their friends, if they were tired, should go home and Leave Members on that side of the House to do the work. [Laughter.]
Question put, "That the House adjourn." The House divided: —Ayes, 133; Noes, 76.—(Division List, No. 252.)
House adjourned accordingly at Half after Seven o'clock.