Commons Sitting of 28 May 1897

PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS (IRELAND) REGISTRATION BILL.
Second Reading deferred from Friday next till Monday 14th June.
QUESTIONS.

  ALIEN IMMIGRATION.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in the past 40 months 104,656 Foreigners, besides over 30,000 Foreign seamen, have arrived at eastern ports in Great Britain from Europe, not en route for other countries, and mainly as deck or third-class passengers, and that upwards of 35,000 were Russians and
  1506
  Poles, three-fourths of whom came to London: that in 1896 no less than 8,000 of these destitute alien classes settled in this country; and, in such case, if he will endeavour to deal effectively with this Foreign accession to the overcrowded labour market early next Session?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): My attention has been drawn to the number of alien immigrants arriving in this country, and "not stated to be en route for other countries," and I have no doubt that the figures quoted are substantially accurate. The subject will continue to receive my careful consideration, but I am not in a position to make any promises for next Session.

  CLEANING MACHINERY IN MOTION.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a case at Morley, in which the ex mayor, Alderman Scarth, charged at the instance of the Factory Inspector with a breach of the Factory Act, was fined 1s. and costs by the Borough Bench for allowing the cleaning of machinery in motion by a male young person; and whether a report can be obtained from the inspector on the circumstances of the case?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): I have received a report from the inspector upon this case. The proceedings were not for allowing the cleaning of machinery in motion, but, under the Act of 1895, for allowing a person to be between the fixed and traversing portions of a self-acting machine without the machine being stopped on the outward run. I am informed that this dangerous practice, now prohibited, has been common in the district, and trust that the publicity given to the present case will lead to its discontinuance. The amount of penalty was a matter within the discretion of the magistrates, but I understand they took into consideration the prevalence of the practice up till now, and the fact that no previous complaints had been made against the defendant.

  ANNALY ESTATE (COUNTY LONGFORD.)
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the present position of the purchase proceedings on the Annaly Estate, county Longford; whether the legal difficulties have yet been overcome; are. the tenants to receive the full benefit of their agreements for the coining gale; and when may they hope to have their conveyances completed?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The rental for sale has been lodged with the Land Commission, and the solicitor having carriage of the sale expects to receive a proposal to purchase by the Land Commission within a fortnight. The terms of purchase include the payment by the tenants of their rents up to the gale day preceding the date of payment of the purchase money by the Land Commission. The solicitor having carriage of the sale expects that the vesting orders will be made by the end of June.

  QUEEN'S DIAMOND JUBILEE.
  MR. JOHN AIRD: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works (1) if Members with the ladies accompanying them, and also the Press, may be allowed to enter the Houses of Parliament on Jubilee bay by the entrance to the House of Lords; and (2) if arrangements can be made for a military band to play in Palace Yard during the morning?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent,): Members of this House and their friends, holding tickets for seats on the House of Commons stands can enter the Palace of Westminster on Jubilee Day by New Palace Yard, by St. Stephen's Porch, or by the garden entrance behind the Victoria Tower, and those desiring to come by water can approach by Speaker's Stairs. I think every needful facility will thus be afforded, and I should deprecate the use of the House of Lords entrance in consideration of the unnecessary labour it would cast on the minor officials of that House if they had to be on duty on that day. The answer to the second
  1508
  paragraph of my hon. Friend's Question is in the negative.
  MR. M. J. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is possible, to mark this year of the Diamond Jubilee, by offering to the senior auxiliary postmen, who are too old for staff' appointments, appointments as supernumerary postmen, whereby they would rise from 18s. to 26s. weekly?
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R.W. HANBURY,). The Postmaster General regrets that it is not possible to offer appointments as supernumerary postmen to senior auxiliaries who are too old for established appointments. The class of supernumerary postmen is a temporary one, and is being gradually abolished as vacancies occur.
  MR. AIRD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been drawn to the great additional pleasure it would give to Members and their friends if the opportunity were afforded of seeing the illumination of the Fleet on the great Naval Review day; and whether he can make any arrangements in the matter?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's, Hanover Square): Negotiations are proceeding with one of the companies, whose tender for the conveyance of visitors has been accepted, with a view to affording an opportunity of seeing the illuminations to the Members of both Houses who propose to attend the Naval Review, but the extra cost of such an arrangement would have to be borne by the Members who desired to prolong their stay. [A laugh.]
  MR. J. G.HOLBURN: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he is aware that the Local Government Board of England have recently issued general orders empowering boards of guardians to grant additional allowances to the legal poor on the occasion of Her Majesty's Diamond Jubilee; if he will explain the difference in the law which prevents parish councils in Scotland being similarly authorised; and whether anything can yet be done to assimilate the powers of the Poor Law authorities in both countries on the occasion in question?
  MR. H. T. ANSTRUTHER (St. Andrews Burghs, for THE LORD ADVOCATE): In reply to the hon. Member, I need only say that the statutes governing such matters in England and Scotland are quite dissimilar, and that it is obviously impossible to assimilate the law in time for the purpose specified in the Question.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether representatives from the Crown Colonies, as well as from Colonies possessing representative government, have been invited to attend the Diamond Jubilee celebrations together with members of the various Native races; and, if not, why this distinction has been made to the disadvantage of the Crown Colonies; and whether any official position will be assigned to the civil officers of the Ceylon Government and representative Native gentlemen visiting London?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The question of the representation of the Crown Colonies at the celebration of the 60th year of Her Majesty's reign has from the first received my most careful consideration. There is no one in these Colonies occupying an analogous position to that of the Premiers of the self-governing Colonies, and I have arrived at the conclusion that representation will, on the whole, be best effected by the presence in London of representative detachments of their local military forces. Invitations to this effect have accordingly been addressed to all Crown Colonies, including Ceylon, where such a representation appeared practicable, and no official position can therefore be assigned to any civil officers of the Ceylon Government or to the Native gentlemen who are about to visit London. I may add that this decision was communicated to the Governor of Ceylon, and that I learn from him that it was distinctly explained to the Native gentlemen in question before their departure.
  SIR BARRINGTON SIMEON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the advisability of giving a medal in commemoration of Her Majesty's long reign to members of the Royal Naval Reserve?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I do not see how I could consider the question of granting a medal in commemoration of her Majesty's reign to the Royal Naval Reserve except in conjunction with a proposal to give such a medal to all branches of Her Majesty's Naval and Military forces.
  MR. JAMES DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, in commemoration of Her Majesty's Diamond Jubilee, he will advise the release of the treason-felony prisoners still imprisoned in Irish gaols?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There are no treason-felony prisoners in Irish gaols.
  MR. FLAVIN; I bog to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whether it is proposed, in commemoration of Her Majesty's Diamond Jubilee, to grant a special bounty to the surviving veterans of the Crimean War?
  *THE FINANCJAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL-WILLIAMS, Birmingham, S.): I beg to refer the hon. Member to the answer I made yesterday to the hon. Member for Newington, to the effect that no further step in the direction indicated was at present in contemplation.

  LIGHTHOUSE KEEPERS.
  MR. D. NICOL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the petitions from the lighthouse keepers of the United Kingdom for an increase of pay and for prospective pensions in their service have now been considered by him, and if he can state what decision he has arrived at?
  MR. RITCHIE: The Board of Trade are now engaged in considering the recommendations of the lighthouse authorities with regard to the position of the lighthouse keepers in their service, but having regard to the varying circumstances in each case, it must be some time before a decision can be arrived at.

  STATIONERY OFFICE.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any complaints have reached him from the various classes of clerks in

  1511
  Her Majesty's Stationery Office as to their employment on duties of a superior nature to those specified in the regulations under which they were appointed; whether in one branch of that Department clerks of the old establishment, clerks of the second division, abstractors, and boy copyists are employed side by side on precisely similar duties; and whether considering the long period that has elapsed since the staff of this Department has been re-organised, he will consider the advisability of appointing a Departmental Committee of Inquiry?
  *MR. HANBURY: No, Sir; I am not aware of such complaints by the various classes of clerks referred to. I am assured that in no branch of the Stationery Office do the several classes of clerks named work together on precisely similar duties. It is the fact that the work and the conditions in which it is done have much changed since the last rearrangement in 1879, and I have assented to a suggestion which the Controller recently made to me that the organization of his office should now be inquired into by a Departmental Committee.

  AMERICAN CATTLE.
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can explain upon what principle American cattle intended for slaughter at the port of debarkation may be landed at Liverpool or Glasgow and not at Belfast; and, whether, in the interest of Irish victuallers, he will undertake to modify the rules so that foreign cattle may be landed in Belfast?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. WALTER LONG, Liverpool, West Derby): The matter to which the hon. Member refers is not within my own jurisdiction but within that of the Irish Privy Council. I answered a question respecting it on the 24th July last, and I shall be happy to hand the hon. Member a copy of the reply I then made.
  MR. G. W. WOLFFasked whether it was not the fact that the Irish authorities were not averse to these cattle landing at Belfast, but that the right hon. Gentleman had frightened them by saying that if a single case of
  1512
  disease occurred it would stop the importation of all Irish cattle into England?
  *MR. LONG: I am not prepared to reply on behalf of the Irish Department; but, as far as my action goes, all I did was to intimate to the Irish Government that if they ran the risk certain results might follow, and that if they did follow certain things would happen.

  POST OFFICE ESTABLISHMENTS.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that postmen are to-day being passed over for stripes for irregularities, already expiated, committed more than four years ago; and, if so, whether that portion of the Inter-departmental Report on Post Office Establishments referring to unblemished character for five years can be so modified as to insure to these postmen the issue of their stripes now due and be not made to act retrospectively?
  *MR. HANBURY: A good conduct stripe can be earned only by five years' good conduct, and the Postmaster General is not prepared to modify the regulation in the manner suggested.

  POTATO CROP (LISTOWEL DISTRICT.)
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) if he is aware that the potato crop was seriously injured by heavy rains and other causes in the Listowel Union last harvest; and (2) whether, in view of the possibility of the blight setting in from the injured condition of the seed planted this year, the Guardians of the Listowel Union will be allowed to purchase a number of sprayers for the protection of the potato crop from blight?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR:I believe the fact is as stated in the first paragraph. As regards the second paragraph, there is no legal authority by which the Guardians are empowered to expend the rates of the Union in purchasing spraying machines for the use of occupiers of land in the various electoral divisions of the Union. I may add, however, that the Congested Districts Board proposes this year to apply a sum of £1,000 towards supplying spraying materials within the congested districts.

  CIVIL SERVICE (TEMPORARY MEN COPYISTS).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the date when the present class of temporary men copyists were first advertised for by the Civil Service Commissioners in the public Press; the date of the first public examination for temporary men copyists; and the date when the first batch of successful candidates were registered by the Civil Service Commissioners?
  *MR. HANBURY: The first notice of examinations being held for temporary copyists (then called writers) was issued 15th August 1870, inviting applicants to present themselves for examination on any Thursday or Friday during August or September. A large number of applicants attended accordingly for examination in the weeks ending August 20th and 27th, and on August 30th. The Commissioners passed a minute, directing that the names of 18 successful in the examinations should be registered, as the inquiries respecting age, health, and character, were completed. Names were thus registered on September 3rd, 6th, 8th, and later dates. This register of temporary men copyists was closed in December 1886 (on the issue of the Treasury Minute giving bonuses for good service and gratuities on retirement). Since then, 745 men, then serving as temporary copyists, have obtained permanent appointments in the Civil Service (as "Abstractors," or otherwise) and only 122 are now serving as temporary copyists.

  IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware that great inconvenience is caused by the early hour at which the Sunday mail train leaves Limerick for Tralee; and whether the Postmaster General will allow the railway company to change the hour of departure to a more convenient one?
  *MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is not aware that inconvenience is caused by the earl mess of the hour at which the night mail train is dispatched front Limerick to Tralee on Sundays.
  1514
  The dispatch is made at 7.30 a.m., 2 hours 40 minutes later than on weekdays. Tralee itself is served by an earlier train from Mallow; but there is reason to believe that if the train from Limerick were made later on Sundays than at present, complaints would be received as to the later delivery of the correspondence of the towns between Limerick and Tralee. Under these circumstances, the Postmaster General does not see his way clear to agree to a later dispatch of this train on Sundays.

  ROYAL CANAL HARBOUR, LONGFORD).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he can now state the result of the promised investigation of their statutes by the Midland Great Western Railway Company on the subject of the fencing of the Royal Canal Harbour at Longford; and whether the people of Longford may hope for anything being done in the matter?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: I am informed that the Midland Great Western Railway Company have been advised that they are under no legal obligation to fence the canal, nor can they legally so fence the canal as to prevent reasonable access to it, or to do any act which would obstruct its navigation. This ad vice cannot, of course, interfere with such legal rights as the Town Commissioners have, to put up, for the protection of the public, a fence on the township property—provided the same be not an obstruction to the navigation.

  IRISH CHRONICLES AND MEMORIALS.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether there is any money provided by Parliament for the publication of ancient chronicles and memorials connected with the history of Ireland; whether he is aware that there are several most valuable ancient Irish chronicles and documents still unpublished, whilst large sums have been annually granted for the publication of like documents connected with the history of England and Scotland; and whether a like provision will be made in future for the publication of ancient Irish chronicles and memorials.
  *MR. HANBURY: For many years, since about 1825, provision has been made by Parliament for the publication in full of public and private documents connected with the history of Great Britain and Ireland prior to the reign of Henry VIII., forming what is known as the Rolls Series. Of these the Irish have formed a considerable proportion; and over and above these the Celtic documents have been provided for by special Parliamentary grants, while the Royal Irish Academy (who deal with them) receive, in money and housing, a subsidy of over £2,000 a year. We have received no representations as to important Irish documents still unpublished. This branch of antiquarian work is being replaced by that of calendaring official documents of public interest; but of the only two new works which have been undertaken since 1885, one is wholly, and the other mainly, Irish. Private collections of historical documents are dealt with by the Historical Manuscripts Commission, who, I observe, are at work on the Ormonde papers and on the Acts of Queen Elizabeth's Privy Council in Ireland. The right hon. and learned Member may be interested to know that we have just bought for the Irish Record Office some State papers of about two centuries back at the sale of the Phillips library. ["Hear, hear!"]

  POSTAL ORDERS.
  MR. G. B. HUDSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the Postal authorities refuse to pay halfpennies in postal orders although a half-penny stamp is affixed to an order, causing inconvenience to those forwarding remittances by post where an exact sum is required, such as in the payment of rates; and whether this rule can be done away with?
  *MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is aware that the payment of halfpennies on postal orders is refused, and he would refer the hon. Member to the rule on the subject which appears at page 435 of the Post Office Guide. One difficulty was that many postal orders were passed through bankers and they did not pay half-pennies. In view of
  1516
  the inconvenience which would arise if the practice were changed, the Postmaster General regrets he is not able to do away with the rule.

  ZANZIBAR.
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, under the decree issued by the Sultan of Zanzibar on 6th April last, British officers have been appointed to watch the cases and to prevent injustice, in accordance with the instructions sent to Mr. Hardinge on 10th February by Lord Salisbury, in each of the district courts on the Islands of Pemba and Zanzibar; and, if so, whether such officers are carrying out this work?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (MR. G. CURZON,): In accordance with the recommendation of Her Majesty's Government, Mr. Hardinge proposed that Mr. Last, who has had large experience in the interior of the island of Zanzibar, and Archdeacon Farler, late of the Universities Mission, should be appointed for Zanzibar and Pemba respectively; and they are believed to be now engaged upon these duties.

  FUGITIVE SLAVES (BRITISH EAST AFRICA PROTECTORATE).
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's representatives in the Coast strip of the British East Africa Protectorate have been in the habit of issuing formal documents giving to the bearers permission to proceed to given places to search for slaves, on which permits they have levied a fee; and, whether runaway slaves fetched by soldiers in British employ, as wanted by the Commissioner, with letters signed by the Commissioner, have after their surrender been taken before British Courts for proof of ownership, and, after proof, handed over to their masters?
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is acquainted with the manner in which Her Majesty's Representatives administering the Coast

  1517
  strip of the British East Africa Protectorate over a length of 200 miles have hitherto exercised the discretion vested in them to claim or not to claim fugitive slaves; whether British subjects have been compelled to surrender fugitive slaves by the British authorities, and have in fact surrendered great numbers of such slaves; and whether the recent direction to Her Majesty's Representatives to conform to the terms of the Brussels Act will prevent such practices in future?
  *MR. CURZON: Under the system which till lately prevailed in the mainland dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar, legally held slaves who had run away without justification or excuse were restored to their owners. More recently the British Administrator has received instructions to exercise his discretion in each case as it occurs. The hon. Member is no doubt aware that the abolition of the legal status of slavery is confined to the insular dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar. It would not at present be possible to carry into effect such a measure on the mainland. Her Majesty's Representatives have instructions to conform to the provisions of the Brussels Act; but as I pointed out the other day, they do not apply to the majority of the cases to which allusion appears to be made in the two Questions.

  DISTRESS RELIEF WORKS (CO. CAVAN).
  MR. J. P. PARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any, and if so what, steps have been taken to complete the public road in the electoral divisions of Benhack and Templeport, in the Bawnboy (Co. Cavan) Union, which was commenced during the period of relief of distress works in 1894–95; whether he is aware that the sum of £50, voted by the Treasury to complete the road, had to be returned because the work could not be finished within the financial year; and whether, under all the circumstances, and seeing that the road has already cost a very large sum of money, yet is wholly useless for the want of surface metalling, he will again ask the Treasury to re-open the matter and advance the necessary amount of
  1518
  money to complete this useful public convenience?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member's previous question of the 1st May 1896 on this subject, and must decline to ask the Treasury to re-open the matter.

  LOAN FUND BOARD (IRELAND).
  MR. JASPER TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state why the annual Report of the Irish Loan Fund Board for 1896 has not yet been presented to Parliament; and whether he can indicate when it will be possible for Members to obtain copies of this Report?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Report is now practically complete, and will be presented with as little delay as possible.

  MULLINGAR UNION.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Local Government Board last year cancelled the medicine contract in Mullingar Union, and declared the local contractor unfit to hold the contract, on account of the system of overcharging practised, the Local Government Board pointing out that the local contractor charged £70 for drugs which Messrs. Leslie, Dublin, tendered to supply for £40; whether the Local Government Board have sanctioned the action of the Guardians this year in voting the medicine contract to the same local contractor, although there were five lower tenders from competent and respectable houses in Dublin, Sligo, and Cork; and whether he can state the reasons that have induced the Local Government Board to sanction this year what they cancelled last year?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The reasons for the termination of the medicine contract last year wore explained by me in answer to the hon. Member's previous question of the 2Gth January. Boards of Guardians are at liberty to enter into Union contracts, including the supply of medicines, without the sanction of the Local Government

  1519
  Board. The Board have not expressed their sanction to this year's contract, but should it hereafter be found that overcharges are made in connection with the contract the Board would then take cognizance of the matter.

  IRISH ANTIQUITIES.
  MR. WILLIAM LECKY: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether a superintendent of the Irish Antiquities in the Science and Art Museum, Dublin, has yet been appointed; and, if not, when it is expected that such an appointment will be made; and if he can state how much of the grant in aid, amounting to £300, which is placed on the votes for the Dublin Science and Art Museum and National Library, it is proposed to allocate to the section of the Museum devoted to Irish antiquities, or whether the increase of the vote by a sum of £900 over the last financial year is meant to be expended on adequately displaying the Museum of Antiquities transferred from the Royal Irish Academy's house?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST, Cambridge University): The Committee of Council hope to be able to announce the appointment at an early date. No part of the sum of £300 is separately allocated to the Irish Antiquities Section. None of the grant can be spent on the structure of the Museum.

  GAMBLING IN PRODUCE FUTURES.
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he has received or asked for any reports from British Consuls stationed in the capitals of the various European nations which have legislated or are considering legislation respecting gambling in futures of produce: and, whether he will cause such inquiry to be made and reported to this House?
  MR. RITCHIE: Reports have been called for from Her Majesty's Representatives in the capitals of the countries referred to, and the replies are now being received.

  COLLEGE OF SCIENCE, DUBLIN.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether it is contemplated to restore the College of Science, Dublin, to its original constitution as embodied in the Report of the Commission held in 1866; and whether, as that report was drawn up and signed by the best authorities of local requirements, including Dr. Sullivan, Sir Robert Kane, Professor Tyndall, and Lord Rosse, being amongst the experts, the proposed new college will be included amongst the institutions to be governed by local authority?
  SIR JOHN GORST: The college is carried on in accordance with the Report referred to, with some slight modifications. The Report did not contemplate its being governed by local authority.

  DELAGOA BAY ARBITRATION AWARD.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state when the Delagoa Bay Arbitration Award will be promulgated; and whether, seeing that eight years have passed since the claim came before the Jurists at Berne, Switzerland, he will explain the cause of the delay?
  *MR. CURZON: I cannot yet say when the Award will be given. Delay has been caused by the successive applications for postponement which have been made by both parties to the arbitration, and by the necessity which had arisen for sending an expert out to report upon the Delagoa Bay Railway and other South African lines.

  MAGNETIC OBSERVATORY (GREENWICH).
  LORD HUGH CECIL: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether any steps have been taken to fix the site of the new Magnetic Observatory at Greenwich?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: Yes, Sir; and a site has been selected with the concurrence of the Astronomer Royal. May I take this opportunity of stating that Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to signify her consent to the handing over of the Ranger's Lodge at Greenwich to the Commissioners of

  1521
  Woods and Forests, and it will, in future, form part of the Hereditary Land Revenues of the Crown? That portion of Greenwich Park, some 15 acres in extent, which has hitherto formed part of the grounds annexed to the Ranger's Lodge, Her Majesty has been pleased to throw into the Royal Park for the use of the public, and I may say that it will add very materially, both in extent and otherwise, to the beauty of the park. Her Majesty's gracious act will, I am confident, be duly appreciated by the House.

  ARMY REGULATIONS (ST. PATRICK'S DAY).
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if it is the intention of the authorities to issue regulations with regard to the wearing of the shamrock on St. Patrick's day by soldiers of Irish nationality in Her Majesty's Army?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: It is not intended to issue any regulation specially affecting the wearing of emblems by Irish soldiers.

  NAVAL MANŒUVRES.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the authorities in the coming Naval manœuvres to direct any of the Fleet to visit Tarbert 13av, on the coast of Kerry?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: No decision has been arrived at as to the places to which Her Majesty's ships will be sent in the coming Naval Manœuvres.

  RURAL POST MESSENGER (DISMISSAL).
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what were the grounds for the dismissal of Rural Messenger Corley, of Emyvale, who discharged the duties of letter-carrier between Emyvale and Mullan for a period of four years without a single complaint having been made against him; and will employment be found for him when the staff of rural messengers is being increased?
  *MR. HANBURY: It can scarcely be said that the man was dismissed. When the situation was recently converted into an established appointment, imperfect information respecting Curley was furnished, and this led to another person being selected. I have made inquiries and find that the imperfect information respecting Curley (not Corley) was owing to his being thought to be another man who had only one leg. But upon fuller information being forthcoming, steps were taken to reverse the decision, and Curley, who was placed on the duty on Monday the 24th instant, will be appointed if he can obtain the necessary Civil Service certificate.

  SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM.
  LORD WARKWORTH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is able to state what course the Government propose to take in view of the unanimous Report from the Select Committee on Museums of the Science and Art Department, with regard to the serious danger of destruction by fire to which the collections at the South Kensington Museum are exposed?
  MR. T. SKEWES-COX: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what steps are proposed to be taken to forthwith protect the collections at South Kensington Museum, which are described in the recent Report of the Committee as priceless, against loss or damage from fire, having regard to the Report submitted on the subject by the Select Committee on the Museums of the Science and Art Departments?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked when the authorities first became aware of the danger from fire, and whether they had continued to add to the collection thus exposed to danger?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): In reference to the Question just put to me by my hon. Friend, I must ask for notice. With regard to the Questions on the Paper, I have to say that the Report is engaging the serious attention of the Government. ["Hear, hear."]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. J. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will give an assurance that the Education Vote will not be taken until after the Whitsuntide Recess?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he hoped the Education Vote would be taken shortly after Whitsuntide, not before, but he could give no promise as to the day.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposes again to take the Army Estimates; and, if he will be so good as to arrange to resume the discussion of the Vote for the Secretary of State's salary on the Friday following Her Majesty's Commemoration, or as soon after as may be convenient?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he thought it would be convenient to resume the discussion of the Army Estimates next week. They would not, however, take Vote 13—War Office Salaries—until after Whitsuntide, and he would give his right hon. Friend ample notice of the date when it would be taken.
  MR. F. A. CHANNINGasked whether they were to understand that the Education Vote would not be taken in the third week in June, which week, they had been told, would be reserved for non-controversial Supply?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYcould not give any pledge that they would not take the Education Vote in that week.
  COLONEL MILWARDasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the general wish that the Committee stage of the Workmen (Compensation for Accidents) Bill should close before the Whitsuntide recess, and to the possibility in that event of an extra holiday on the 14th, 15th, and 16th of June, it was not desirable to suspend the Twelve o'clock Rule next week?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I think it is a matter of some importance that the House should consider what steps we ought to take with the Committee stage of this Bill; not
  1524
  that I for a moment suggest that any undue length of time has been taken up in discussing the Bill, for I admit the discussion has been of a very businesslike character, but because, unless we succeed in finishing the Committee stage before the holidays, it will be necessary for us to meet on Monday the 14th, and go on with it then. That, I feel sure, would be very inconvenient, and I think it would be worth our while making a little extra effort next week in order to avoid that necessity. If we succeed in finishing the Committee stage before we separate for the holidays, I suggest we should not meet until Thursday, the 17th, and that then we should take up Supply. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *SIR C. DILKEpointed out that there were several controversial points to raise on the schedule to the Bill.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I admit that that is so. Of course, if we suspend the Twelve o'clock Rule, it will not be for the purpose of any prolonged sitting, but simply to gain an additional three-quarters of an hour or an hour. I hope the House will consider the alternative. Both alternatives undoubtedly are open to some objection, but I think the general convenience of the House would be met by a little extra sitting upon the three nights which still remain before the holidays.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLasked whether it was the intention of the Government to take Irish Supply on the day of reassembling?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, Sir.
  MR. J. J. CLANCY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the promised Bill dealing with technical education in Ireland will be introduced, and what is the estimated amount of money to be disposed of under the provisions of the Measure?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The proposals with respect to technical education which the Govern-men intended to introduce were in connection with the Agriculture and Industries Bill. That Bill, as the hon. Gentleman knows, has been dropped, and of necessity, therefore, the technical education proposals dropped with it for the present Session.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [TENTH ALLOTTED DAT.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1897–8.

  CLASS I.
  1. £132,291, to complete the sum For Survey of the United Kingdom.
  MR. JOHN DILLONcalled attention to the case of the Civil assistants of the Ordnance Survey, who, according to the information supplied to him, had been unfairly deprived of their rights to promotion and superannuation under certain rules introduced some 25 years ago. He believed that the rule against the Civil assistants was made by the then head of the Survey on the distinct understanding that the Survey would be completed in or about the year 1880, and that therefore it was not desirable of take on any more assistants in that Department who could be treated as permanent Civil Servants of the Crown. This was now 1897, and the Ordnance Survey was not completed; in fact, he was informed it might go on for an indefinite number of years. Perhaps the responsible Minister would state to the Committee the view he took in regard to the claim of these men.
  *MR. HANBURYthought the hon. Member was under some misapprehension as to the real merits of the case. As he understood, these Civil assistants who were without pension rested their claim to pension upon two grounds. They maintained, in the first place, that when they entered the service they thought it was a pensionable service. No doubt up to the year 1870 this had been a pensionable service, but in that year Sir Henry James, who was then Director of the Survey, came to the conclusion that the survey ought to be completed in about ten years—about 1880. That being so, it was absurd to enter men who would be pensionable; and, consequently, orders were given by the Office of Works, who
  1526
  were then the controlling authority of the Survey, to the effect that no more men should be admitted upon pensionable terms. That Order was sent to Sir Henry James on September 29, 1870, (but it was not made known to the men generally until about the end of August, 1872, when the Order was officially announced in the House, and a Parliamentary Paper was issued stating publicly the effect of the Order. The men apparently refused to treat that as an official notice, and on January 4, 1873, an official notice was issued to the men warning them as to the Order that had been given. The men who had entered the service between September 29, 1870, and January 4, 1873, contended that between those dates they had had no official intimation that they were not pensionable, and they claimed pension. In 1894 that claim was conceded. Now, however, those who entered the service since January 4, 1874, said that, although no doubt they had full notice, they were in the same position with regard to pay as the men who had entered during the two previous years, and they ought to be treated in exactly the same way. The answer was complete—namely, that they entered the service with full knowledge of their position. Then they said, "Yes, that may be true, but we are paid on the same terms as those men." That, again, was not exactly accurate, because there were two sets of men who were receiving the same wages. There were those who had received the same salary and prospective pension in addition, owing to an alleged mistake which did not exist in the case of the men who had complained; and the only other men who received the same rate of salary and pensions in addition were the men of higher position, who had been promoted to supervising and superintending posts. There was, therefore, no analogy between the two cases. Another point raised was that in 1870 this service was made a non-pensionable service, under the idea that the ordnance survey would come to an end in about ten years. That was perfectly true, but what had happened in that time? In the first place, all the men whose work was necessarily permanent were pensionable as it was. Then, again, they found that the work was quite as well, and perhaps better, done by a non-pensionable staff,

  1527
  where they could dismiss the men either if they were not required or their work was not quite up to the mark. According to the Report of the Committee of 1891, the number of pensionable men was 300, as compared with 1,350 who were not pensionable, and it would be perfectly ridiculous to put the whole of these 1,350 men or whatever the present number was when they had no special claim whatever, in exactly the same position as the pensionable men. He was bound to say that they had not very much encouragement to give pensions, because some of the trouble with regard to this staff had really arisen with the men who were pensionable already. The Committee of 1891 had gone into this case most carefully, and they reported that these men were receiving the full pay their services required, that there was a great demand to enter the service, that sons of civil assistants themselves were constantly applying to be put on the list, and that many who had left the service were constantly asking to be restored. That showed that the men were receiving adequate and full salary. The Committee also said it would be a great disadvantage to the service if these men were pensioned, because undoubtedly, in a great number of these cases, the work would be quite as well done by the Royal Engineers, and that in the case of vacancies, it would be more advantageous to the service, instead of having pensionable men, to employ Royal Engineers in their place. A further argument raised by the men was that if the Government could not pension them all, at any rate, they should pension those who had been 15 years in the service. That, of course, gave away the case of all the men who had not had 15 years' service. It was an admission that their salaries were adequate. He did not know why men with that amount of service should be treated differently to men of shorter service. They must have the whole of the men in a similar position, either pensionable or not pensionable. As a matter of fact the men who had served 15 years were already in a somewhat better position than the men who had not served that time, because on their retirement after 15 years' service they were entitled to a very considerable gratuity. Then, again, the men raised the point that they had been in continuous employment and that, therefore, they ought to
  1528
  be put on the pension list. The answer to that was equally plain. They had had the benefit of being in this continuous employment, a benefit which they might not have had if they had been in private service. Their case by no means differed from that of a large number of men in the employment of the Government.
  SIR BARRINGTON SIMEONwas sure the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would not think he was in any way contradicting him, or being at all uncivil, if he said that the account he had given of the knowledge of these men, many of whom were in his own constituency, when they joined that they were not going into a pensionable service, was perfectly different from that which they themselves gave. He could bring forward many of these temporary civil assistants who would take their oath that they joined this service believing, and having every possible good reason to believe, that they were joining a service in which they would get pensions at the age of 60 years. He had seen in Colonel Leech's own handwriting a letter in which he said that the taking of pensions off these men was not a publication, but was simply a direction to the Director of the Ordnance Survey Department, the then Sir Henry James. They were told that these boys might have found out from the Parliamentary Papers that they were joining a survey which was not pensionable, but how were these young clerks to get hold of Parliamentary Papers at the age of 14 to find out whether, when they were 60 years old they were to have a pension or not. He absolutely maintained that proper steps had not been taken, and he did not know that they had been taken at this moment, to tell these men that they were not to receive a pension. They were told that the pay was so good that pensions were absolutely unnecessary. When a man was 29 years old and had got 15 years' service he had a pay of 30s. a week. If he had 30 years' service his pay was 50s. if he had been of the best possible conduct. They had to remember that every one of these men was an educated man, and that he quite naturally wished to educate his children as well as, or better than, he had been educated himself. He maintained that it was absolutely impossible for a middle-aged man, out of 50s. a week, with children to educate and himself to keep respectable, to save

  1529
  money. He completely, but as politely as he could, denied the idea that the pay was sufficient to make pensions unnecessary. The right hon. Gentleman had told them—and he quite allowed that he must know—that a great many sons of these men were anxious to go into the same service as their fathers. All that he could say was that a very great many sons of these men were not anxious to go into the same service. The number of sons of men in this employment who wanted to go as clerks in the railway and said they were better treated than they would be in their father's service was perfectly annoying at times when the postbag came in in the morning. He was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had not been able to say anything that would have been comforting to the hearts of these people. He supposed the only thing to do was to hammer away year after year, because it was absolutely necessary that the state of these people should be kept as much as possible before Parliament. He hoped that some day the Treasury would change their minds and be a little more soft-hearted to these most deserving, but most necessitous, people.
  MR. J. J. CLANCYagreed with the Secretary to the Treasury that there was no distinction between those men who had 15 years' service, and those who had not, but he thought that the claim on behalf of these men for pensions was sustainable on another ground. The work in which these men were employed was of a peculiar and exceptional character, and required a very special training, and when they ceased to work at this employment they were absolutely useless for any other employment. He desired to press that point on the right hon. Gentleman because he had not touched it at all. He wanted to ask him this question. Were the Treasury under the circumstances, knowing that these were educated men—personally, he knew several of these men to be men of education and real gentlemen—were, the Treasury, knowing the character of these men, and knowing that after 15 or 20 years' service they would be absolutely helpless and idle, and if they had not saved money absolutely without resources—wore they going, under these circumstances, to stand on the strict letter of their contract? He would admit for the moment the strength of the point made by the Secretary to the Treasury as to the men having knowledge of
  1530
  the fact that they were to be without pensions; though, indeed, he must say that the reply of the hon. Member for Southampton on that subject came home to him with peculiar force, because he know, as a matter of fact, that these public notices, supposed to be given, did not come within the knowledge of the persons affected. But, admitting for the moment that these men knew on entering the service that they were entering a non-pensionable service, was it in the public interest to hold them to it? Putting the public interest aside, was it common justice to take the services of a man of special education, and exceptional training, who at the end of 15 or 20 years' service, when he lost his employment, would be absolutely without resources and without the means of earning his bread—was it common justice for the Treasury to say, "Oh ! we made a contract with you 20, or it may be 30, years ago; you knew you were entering an unpensionable service, and we will bind you now to the strictest terms of that contract." It would be a mean and shabby performance on the part of the Treasury of this great country, which was able to spend on one shell fired into Crete the other day, as much money as would provide pensions for the whole of these people. There was another reason why these men were entitled to generous treatment in the matter of pensions. The right hon. Gentleman had hinted at the desirability of employing Royal Engineers to do some of this work according as vacancies arose. He was informed that when vacancies had occurred, men on the temporary list, well qualified by training and character—had been passed over, and instead of appointing these men to the posts, and thereby mitigating to that extent the grievance of having no pension, they had dragged in men of the Koyal Engineers, men who had been worn-out in the service, and who had a pension already, and who, in his opinion, were not fit for the work, at all events, not as fit as the persons who had been passed over.
  *MR. HANBURYwished to correct the hon. Member. In 1894 there wore 43 civil assistants appointed, as against 12 Royal Engineers.
  MR. CLANCYsaid that was just his case. Why should any of these vacancies be given to the Royal Engineers? Why should they not be all given to the

  1531
  temporary civil assistants? It was out of the nature of things that these Royal Engineers, after long service in other parts of the world, and who were already provided for, should be as fit for the duties as men who had specially trained; and it was most unjust that they should be promoted over the heads of men who had practically spent the whole of their lives in doing the drudgery of the Department. The course pursued seemed to him to be shabby, mean, and unjust, and as long as he was in the House he should never cease to say so, until the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury or some one else representing his Department, gave way upon this question.
  MR. C. J. MONKsaid that in spite of what had been urged, he thought the Committee would be of opinion that the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury was quite unanswerable. The appeal to justice could hardly come fairly from hon. Gentlemen opposite. He thought that justice had been fully done to the employés of the Ordnance Survey. He rose, however, for the purpose of asking how long the Survey would be continued? Parliament was informed many years ago that it would probably be concluded in 1880. Seventeen years had passed, and he should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman could give them any idea how many years more it would be prolonged. He observed that there was an increase in the estimate this year of upwards of £7,000. That increase probably arose under the head of stores. There was an increase of £2,500 for maps and printer's ink; and he had hopes that perhaps this might be an indication that the labours of the Survey were approaching an end, and that the time had arrived for finishing and printing off the maps. But he also saw a new item this year—" contract work." Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would explain what part of this work vas done by contract. His chief object, however, was to inquire how long the Ordnance Survey was likely to be prolonged?
  MR. JOHN DILLONsaid he should like to hear some statement in reference to the claims of these officers from the President of the Board of Agriculture, who was responsible.
  *MR. HANBURY: The Treasury is responsible on the question of pensions;
  1532
  but with the exception of the amount referred to by my hon. Friend behind, the amounts are already passed.
  MR. DILLONsaid the Secretary to the Treasury had, no doubt, with his usual ability, made a case against throwing an additional charge on the Treasury. But he trusted that before the discussion was over they would have some statement from the head of the Department responsible for the work of the Survey. The Secretary to the Treasury made one remarkable statement. He said it had been reported by a Departmental Committee, which sat, he believed, in 1892, that the work was quite as well done by non-pensionable men as by men who were drawing pensions. That was a very wide issue to raise, because hon. Members knew there were many people in this country who opposed pensions of all kinds in the Civil Service, and if they were to be told that sort of thing with regard to one Department of the Civil Service, they would begin to ask, "Why not extend the principle to other Departments of the Civil Service?" The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that in spite of the fact that these men knew they were not going to have pensions, and that their salaries were fixed at a certain figure—which appeared to him to be very moderate—still plenty of men were willing to enter the service. Well, that argument, carried to its full extent, would justify sweating. ["Hear, hear!"] They knew well that with the competition which existed in this thickly populated country, they might probably do away with pensions in the Civil Service altogether, and reduce salaries at the same time, and yet be able to get plenty of poor fellows who were anxious to get in as long as they could earn a subsistence allowance. But that was not the point. The right hon. Gentleman had not, in his judgment, satisfactorily stated what were the grounds on which this Department of the Civil Service was to be treated worse than any other Department. The only attempt he had made at giving a reason for this discrimination as against the civil assistants of the Ordnance Survey Department was that some time ago it was the opinion of Sir Henry James—then the head of the Department—that his Department was going to come to an end in 1880, and that, therefore, it was unjust and unwise

  1533
  to the finances of the country to take on a fresh number of pensionable servants in a Department that was going to cease —and accordingly a minute was made enforcing the system of giving no pensions to the civil assistants. But it had turned out that the opinion of Sir Henry James was not a well-founded opinion. The Ordnance Department had not come to an end in 1880, and, as the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had pointed out, in 1897, not only were there no signs of its coming to an end, but there was an actual increase of expenditure. At the present moment there were 1,600 Civil assistants at work in the Ordnance Survey. In the Report of the Departmental Committee of 1892 it was stated that the question of superannuation was not one of the points referred to the Committee for consideration, but in the course of the proceedings several protests were made by witnesses against its exclusion, and the Committee thought it right to draw attention to the fact that this could not be regarded as a temporary Department of the Civil Service, but that it was necessary to maintain it as a permanent Department, and that although the question of superannuation was not referred to them in their reference, they felt that the question must sooner or later arise. That was to say that in 1892, 12 years after Sir Henry James recommended the abolition of superannuation on the ground that the Department would be wound up in 1880, this Committee give it as their judgment that it must be regarded as a permanent Department. It was only natural that when these clerks found themselves discriminated against and boycotted in the public service, they should consider they had a grievance.
  *MR. HANBURY: That Report was considered the very next year, and 76 pensionable posts were created.
  MR. DILLONsaid the Report of the Committee referred to the whole question. It stated that this Department must be regarded as a permanent Department of the Civil Service, and these men, being permanent Civil servants, it was not fair to say they should be treated on a different footing to other Civil servants of the Crown. In this country, whether for good or evil, the superannuation system had been extended to the whole of the Civil Service, and if they
  1534
  accepted that principle for one Department they were bound, in common equity and justice, to extend it to all Departments, unless there were special grounds why, in this particular Department, the superannuation principle ought not to apply. No ground or justification had been offered the Committee by the Secretary to the Treasury for treating this particular Department, which was admitted to be a permanent branch of the Civil Service, on different principles from those adopted in regard to every other branch. The right hon. Gentleman led the Committee to suppose that these officials were amply paid, and had no ground for grievance at all. But their maximum pay was very little over £2, while their minimum pay was something like 30s. per week, and that, too, for men who must be above the average clerk of the Civil Service in point of acquirements, education, and skill. Again, it was alleged that their work was particularly trying on the eyesight, and that a great number of them broke down because their sight became weak; and they were thus left without any resources at all. Another ground on which he thought that these servants were specially entitled to be better, rather than worse, treated than the servants of other Departments, was that, while promotion in every other branch of the Civil Service-was open to the lower ranks, in this Department the upper ranks were almost entirely closed to the temporary Civil assistants, the whole of the superior and highly-paid offices being in the hands of the officers of the Royal Engineers. He thought it a cruel thing to deny them this right to a pension—whether they had notice of it on entering the Service or not—when there was no equivalent increase in their salaries in consequence of this denial of pension. He trusted that before this Vote was taken the President of the Board of Agriculture would endeavour to' soften the stony heart of the Secretary to the Treasury and induce him to reconsider the matter.
  MR. T. LOUGHsuggested that those interested in this subject should induce the Secretary to the Treasury to receive a deputation, when the whole matter could be presented before him. He desired to thank tile right hon. Gentleman for inaugurating a most useful change, by which Ordnance maps

  1535
  were now on sale at the post offices. He saw by the Report which was issued the previous day that, whereas in England and Wales there were formerly 111 agents for the sale of the maps, they were now procurable at 492 post offices in addition to the agencies; that, whereas in Scotland there were formerly only 15 depôts, the maps were now obtainable at 137 post offices; and that, as regarded Ireland, whereas there were previously only 12 places where the maps could be obtained, they were now on sale at 116 post offices. Altogether the maps could be bought at over 700 post offices throughout the United Kingdom, and that was a change upon which the right hon. Gentleman deserved to be congratulated. Something like a quarter of a million a year was spent in connection with the Ordnance Survey, and the receipts for the sale of the maps only amounted to £13,000 or £14,000. That was not at all satisfactory, and they ought to consider whether steps could not possibly be taken to increase the sales. He would suggest that, in order to bring about this result, more liberal terms of commission should be offered the agents who sold them, and that the price of the maps should be reduced. If this were done he was convinced the sales would rapidly increase. He had lately taken a house at Littlestone in Kent, not far from London, and neither in the one-inch nor in the six-inch map was Littlestone shown, nor the railway that led to it. This might possibly explain why the maps were not sold, although £250,000 a year was spent on the Ordnance Survey. The place had grown up within the last 15 years, and yet was not in the maps, which were not brought up to date as quickly as they ought to be.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. WALTER LONG,)said the hon. Member for East Mayo asked for his views with reference to the claim for pensionable rights on the part of the Civil Assistants in the Ordnance Survey Department. It was not his duty as a Minister to decide the questions relating to pensions. The decision on those points rested with the Treasury. The Secretary to the Treasury had announced what that decision was, and it seemed to him that he had firmly established the position taken up in regard to the
  1536
  administration of the Ordnance Survey. He himself did not believe it was in the best interests of the Civil Assistants that their case should be repeated and reinforced. If an attempt were made to increase the cost of the administration of the Department, the alternative indicated by the Secretary to the Treasury would be arrived at with greater rapidity than he hoped it would be. The hon. Member for Gloucester asked when the existing survey would be completed. Dates were given in the Estimates for the completion of the various services, but it was not for himself to say, having regard to the great interest attaching to the Survey, and the great importance of having useful and efficient maps, that the work would be finally determined even by 1920. The increased Estimate was accounted for in this way. Under the head of "Pay" there was an increased Estimate of £1,500. That was a slightly increased sum which he obtained from the Treasury in the hope that he might be able, by means of the employment of additional men, to complete certain portions of the work within the time specified. £1,000 was for the engraving work which had been put out on contract, it being found impossible to get the hill engraving performed within the necessary time unless outside assistance were obtained. It was an experiment, and until they saw the result it was impossible for him to express an opinion. Owing to the increase in the sale of the 25-inch map, further expenditure on paper and materials was necessary. The hon. Member for Islington expressed satisfaction with the new arrangement for the sale of ordnance maps, and asked some detailed questions which it would be premature for him to answer. The new arrangement had only just come into existence. The deposit of index maps at post offices, and the appointment of various agents in the provinces, were entirely new. It did not rest with postmasters to sell the maps. They were supplied with the prices of the maps, which could be seen on application, and were to send in requisitions for such maps as might be applied for, which would then be supplied from Southampton. It was, therefore, undesirable to give them more than a small commission on that part of their work. The hon. Member found fault with the existing Survey because Littlestone was not found on the

  1537
  map. He could not account for the non-appearance of this place, but now that the hon. Member had gone to live there no doubt it would soon obtain notoriety. [laughter and "Hear, hear!"] When the Survey was taken the existence of the place was certainly not known, but no doubt it would find a place in the map when the next survey of that part of the country was taken. He could assure the hon. Member that the Department would do all it could to increase the usefulness and sale of the maps and to bring them easily within the reach of the public in all parts of the country. He did not, however, think there could at present be any reduction in price. The Department were doing their best with the money at their disposal, and if they increased the salaries of the staff he did not see how the price of the maps could be reduced.
  MR. CLANCYpressed for a further answer to the points raised by the hon. Member for East Mayo, with regard to the Civil Assistants in the Ordnance Department. The Secretary to the Treasury was standing out for strict observance of the contract with the Temporary Civil Assistants. But the Government were not observing their part of the contract, because he found that these Temporary Civil Assistants were subjected to all the restrictions of the Civil Service, such as being debarred from taking outside employment, and compulsory retirement at a certain age, and these restrictions were not imposed until long after they entered the service—in fact, they were imposed during the last few years. If the Government had not observed their part of the contract what right had they to assume that they ought not to give pensions because 20 or 30 years ago it was announced in a mysterious hole and corner fashion that pensions would not be given?
  Vote agreed to.
  2. Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £24,037 (including an additional sum of £11,950), be granted to Her Majesty to complete the stun necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898, for maintaining certain harbours, lighthouses, etc. under the Board of Trade."
  MR. CLANCYsaid he objected to any Vote proposed—not that he had any objection to any particular item, but
  1538
  on the ground that he should object to every shilling that it was attempted to give to England or Scotland. His sole and simple objection was to vote money for Great Britain, while under existing circumstances Ireland was called upon to par an undue proportion according to her resources to keep up English establishments, and the present Government having refused redress on that subject, the Irish Members were bound to take the course of opposing every Vote for England and Scotland until there was redress. He might be allowed to say that what was promised last week had in no way redressed the grievance of which Ireland complained. The statement of the First Lord of the Treasury meant the giving to Ireland in one particular matter only equal treatment to that already accorded to England and Scotland. Under the Agricultural Railway Act there was taken for England out of the Imperial purse—
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Order, order ! To discuss that would be out of order. The point the hon. Member is anxious to raise should be raised in Committee of Ways and Means. There is here no question of taxation, it is only a question of granting the money.
  MR. CLANCYsaid they were now granting public money, and as to the Committee of Ways and Means he gathered that it was a fiction and of no consequence at all. The Government had not attempted to grapple with the financial grievances of Ireland, which remained unredressed.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid with all respect he could not take the view that they were not entitled to raise the question on this Vote. That seemed to be a proper and constitutional occasion for raising a grievance of which Ireland complained. ["Hear, hear!"] They were voting money, than which nothing could be more important, and his hon. Friend argued, as he would argue, that Ireland was paying more than her fair share. He certainly should regret if they were debarred from raising a question of this sort. The organ of the Government in the public Press had taken up the position that the recent concession to Ireland was a concession meeting the Financial Relations Commission. It was nothing of the kind. All that was promised was that on one little narrow point equal treatment

  1539
  with England would be dealt out to Ireland.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid it must be obvious to the hon. Member that they could not discuss on the Vote for harbours and lighthouses whether or not Ireland paid her fair share of the general taxation. The hon. Member would be perfectly entitled to discuss whether too much money under this Vote was spent on English and Scotch harbours.
  MR. J. REDMONDsaid that the position he was taking up was absolutely relevant to this Vote. He objected to vote this money. Why? Because Ireland had to pay too large a proportion of it. He pointed to the Report of the Commission, and he contended that the recent promise of the Government did not meet the case. He did not, of course, attempt to go into the details of this matter, but he felt it to be his duty to point out at the earliest opportunity that the proposals of the Government did not in the remotest degree touch the contention that Ireland had to pay too much. What had recently been proposed by the Government did not touch the fringe of that question.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I see no reason to change the opinion which I have expressed, and I hope the hon. Member will not persist in discussing the subject.
  MR. J. REDMOND: I must, Sir, insist on my rights.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I must ask the hon. Member to resume his seat.
  MR. REDMOND: That is a request which has not been made to me for 15 years.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Does the hon. Member decline to resume his seat?
  MR. REDMOND: Yes, Sir; I must respectfully decline.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Then I must name the hon. Member, Mr. Redmond, for disregarding the authority of the Chair.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): I therefore, Sir, beg to move that the hon. Member for Waterford be suspended from the service of the House.
  MR. CLANCY: Must you not Report that to the Speaker?
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Yes, but the Committee must decide first.
  Question put, "That Mr. John Redmond be suspended from the service of the House."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 223; Noes, 32.—(Division List, No. 223.)
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Mr. SPEAKER having resumed the Chair,
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS said: Mr. Speaker, I have to report to you that, during the discussion of a Resolution in Supply, it became my duty to call to order the hon. Member for Waterford City, and, in consequence of persistent irrelevance, I requested him to resume his seat under the Standing Orders of the House. He stated that he would decline to comply with my order, and it then became necessary for me to name the hon. Member. In consequence of that, a Motion was made that the hon. Member should be suspended from the service of the House, and I have to report to you, Sir, that that Motion was put and was carried in Committee.
  *MR. SPEAKERforthwith put the question, "That Mr. John Redmond be suspended from the service of the House."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 238; Noes, 52.—(Division List, No. 224.)
  *MR. SPEAKERhaving declared the result of the Division, said: I do not see the hon. Member in his place, but if he is here I must call upon him to withdraw from the House.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND, who had, before the House was cleared for a Division, taken a seat in the Distinguished Strangers' Gallery, made no sign of obedience to Mr. Speaker's order.
  *MR. SPEAKER (after a brief interval): If the hon. Member is in any part of the House, he must withdraw from the precincts in obedience to the orders of the House.
  Mr. JOHN REDMONDat once left the Distinguished Strangers' Gallery.
  Mr. SPEAKERvacated the Chair, and the House again went into Committee of Supply, the CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS in the Chair.
  MR. CLANCYresumed the Debate on the Vote. He said that before the Vote was passed or put to the Committee he desired to reiterate the reasons he had already given for objecting to it, and to every other Vote for England and Scotland. His reason was that Ireland was called upon to contribute out of its due proportion to the cost of English and Scottish services. A Royal Commission had recently sat and inquired into the question of the over-taxation of Ireland, and the Report of that Commission established beyond doubt or question that Ireland was overtaxed. That being so—
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I have already ruled more than once on that point, that that question cannot be raised upon Votes in Supply. It must be raised in Committee of Ways and Means. This is not the proper time to raise it. I hope the hon. Member will therefore not persist in continued irrelevancy.
  MR. CLANCY: I thought, and I still think, that to raise the question, in general terms, of the over-taxation of Ireland on every Vote was the most relevant thing I could do [Irish cheers]—when we are called upon to contribute to the cost of English and Scottish services. And I must respectfully press my right to discuss this matter. [Ministerial cries of "Order !"]
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I understand the hon. Member desires to persist in disregarding the authority of the Chair.
  MR. CLANCY: I desire to say that I persist in discussing this question which is now before the House upon the grounds —[loud Ministerial cries of "Order !"] —which I have already stated, and I think—
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I have already ruled that that is not a sufficient ground, and that the matter cannot be discussed in Supply. If the hon. Member persists in discussing it in Supply I must regard his conduct as grossly disorderly, and, under these
  1542
  circumstances, I must request him to withdraw from the House.
  MR. CLANCY: I consider the decision unjust—[Ministerial cries of "Order !"] —and I am not disposed to submit to injustice. [Irish cheers and Ministerial cries of"Order!"]
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I have directed the hon. Member to withdraw from the House. Do I understand the hon. Member refuses to obey?
  MR. CLANCY: I do, Sir.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Then I must call on the Serjeant-at-Arms to enforce the order I gave. [Cheers.]
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Send for the Horse Guards! [Laughter.]
  The Serjeant-at-Arms approached the hon. Member for Dublin County, N., who at once rose from his seat and left the House amid Nationalist cheers and Ministerial laughter.
  MR. W. REDMONDrose, amid Ministerial laughter and Nationalist cheers, and said: On a point of order, Mr. Lowther, I desire to ask you whether it is in order for you to order the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove an hon. Member without having first asked the leave of the House to do so? [Cheers.]
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Oh! yes, certainly. [Ministerial cheers.]
  MR. W. REDMOND: May I ask, Sir, on a further point of order, whether we are to understand that we are in this position—that at any time we are liable to be removed from the House by the Serjeant-at-Arms by an order from the Chair?
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: That depends on hon. Members. If hon. Members are disorderly in their conduct it is my duty to order them to withdraw under the Rules of the House. [Ministerial cheers.]
  MR. W. REDMOND: Well, Mr. Lowther, opinions may differ—[cries of "Order!" and laughter]—as to what is disorderly conduct; but I think it is not only grossly disorderly, but grossly criminal, to rob a country and then gag its representatives—[cheers and cries of "Order!"]—and order them out of the House when they simply raise their voice in order to enforce a demand which has

  1543
  been unanimously given utterance to throughout the length and breadth of Ireland. [Cheers.] I certainly on this Vote now before the House desire to say that I take this opportunity, and shall take every opportunity, of objecting to the participation of Ireland in a single one of these Votes in the present circumstances. It has been abundantly proved that the Irish people are taxed altogether out of proportion. [Cries of "Order, order!"]
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I do not know whether it is really necessary for me to repeat what I have already ruled—that that question cannot be raised in Committee of Supply. There are other and proper opportunities for raising that question. ["Hear, hear!"] All I have ruled this afternoon is that this is not a proper occasion for raising that question, and if the hon. Member persists in disregarding my ruling I am afraid I shall have to put the Standing Order in force. ["Hear, hear! "]
  MR. W. REDMOND: I think you should take into consideration, Mr. Lowther, that when you gave your, no doubt, weighty ruling I was not present. I cannot, therefore, be expected to know what your ruling was, and if you have got a ruling that applies to me, I must ask you to explain it. My point at the present time is that I object to this Vote because I object to the Irish people being called on to bear a share in these expenses, and I fail altogether to see—and I say go with great respect—how it is I am out of order in endeavouring to show why it is I object to the Irish people being called on to participate in this Vote. [Cheers.] I do so because I think it is unjust to the Irish people, in view of the fact that it is perfectly well known to the House and this country that the Irish people are taxed more than they ought to be in proportion to the people of this country, and that, as a matter of fact, we are being robbed in Ireland. [Ministerial cries of "Order, order !"] I do not know whether that is grossly disorderly or not, but I consider that I am but discharging a very simple duty to my constituents and the Irish people when I take this opportunity of protesting as strongly as I can against what is undoubtedly a system of robbery practised on the Irish people. [Cheers.] In
  1544
  view of the Report of the Royal Commission on the financial relations—[cries of "Order !" and cheers]—
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The hon. Member is perfectly entitled to object to this Vote on the ground that it is too large and that too much money is spent on English and Scotch harbours and not enough on Irish harbours; but the question of the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland cannot be discussed on this Vote. I think the hon. Member will see—on reflection it will be obvious to him—that it must be so, because otherwise the same question can be raised on every Vote, and that would clearly be against the ordinary rules and practice of the House. ["Hear, hear!"] Therefore that seems to me to be sufficient ground, amongst others, for saying that the question cannot be discussed now, and therefore I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the Vote.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I have listened to your ruling, Mr. Lowther, very patiently. [Loud laughter.] I think every patience is required by hon. Members who, if they say a word on behalf of their countrymen, are liable to be suspended. [Cheers.] Hon. Members opposite seem to think it is extremely amusing to see Irish Members interfered with in expressing what they consider to be the demands of their countrymen. ["Hear, hear!"] I should like very much to see English, Scotch, and Welsh Members labouring under the same grievance we are labouring under in this financial matter. Such treatment as we have received would not be meted out to them. [Cheers.] I really cannot see how it is possible for me to give my reasons for objecting to this Vote without going into the question of the relative taxation of Ireland and Great Britain. [Cries of "Hear, hear !" and "Order!")
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: If that is so, the hon. Member will be disorderly, for he will be violating the ruling I have laid down. If the hon. Member persists in that course I shall have to put the Standing Order in force. [Cheers.]
  MR. W. REDMOND: May I ask you, Mr. Lowther, in all seriousness— [laughter]—upon my word and honour —[renewed laughter]—it is extremely

  1545
  hard for Irish Members to take this treatment seriously—do I understand you to nay that I am grossly disorderly in simply referring to the relative taxation of Ireland and Great Britain? Because, if that is your ruling, all I can say is that it is like a ruling in one of Gilbert and Sullivan's operas. [Laughter, cheers, and cries of "Order !"]
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The hon. Member is grossly disorderly in his last remark. [Cheers.] My ruling is not to the effect quoted by the hon. Member. My ruling is that the hon. Member is not entitled on the present occasion to discuss the question of the financial relations of Great Britain and Ireland. If he cannot state his objections to this Vote without discussing that question, there is no necessity for him to state them, and he can remain silent. ["Hear, hear!"] If, however, he persists in stating them, and bringing that question in, I shall have to take some steps. [Cheers.]
  MR. W. REDMOND: On the question of whether it is necessary for me to state my objections or not, I beg leave to state that you really are not the judge. [Cries of "Order !" and cheers] I am, after all, sent here to say what may be considered necessary, in the opinion of my constituents, and not in the opinion of either the Chairman of Committees or the Speaker of this House—[cheers]— and at the risk of being considered disorderly, I do say it is adding insult to injury to say not only that we are over taxed, but when we attempt to say so, we are practically gagged and subjected to [Laud cries of "Order"]
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The hon. Member is now grossly disorderly, and I must request him to withdraw from the House for the remainder of this day's sitting. [Cheers.]
  MR. W. REDMOND: I certainly shall not withdraw unless you send the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove me.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSdirected the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove the hon. Member.
  Mr. ERSKINEapproached the hon. Member for Clare, E., who at once rose from his seat and passed down the Gangway, previously exclaiming, "I simply protest against the continual robbery of Ireland. You have done it for a century. It is a most outrageous thing." The hon.
  1546
  Member then left the House, amid cheers from his supporters and Ministerial laughter.
  MR. W. FIELD, who rose amid loud Ministerial laughter and Nationalist cheers, said he objected to this Vote because it was proposed to expend a large sum on English harbours without making any provision for Irish harbours, although for many years past the Irish Members had been complaining of the want of funds for the repair of various harbours in Ireland. It was well-known that many harbours in Ireland were in a very unsatisfactory state. The hon. Member proceeded: I have no intention whatever of taking up the time of the House, but I do protest as one who takes an interest in the financial relations of the two countries. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but this is an exceedingly serious question to the Irish people. I have no wish to run counter to the Rules of the House or to dispute your ruling, Sir; but I claim the right of free speech—[cheers]— in a matter on which I believe the majority of my countrymen agree with me; and I challenge any Gentleman who represents a Unionist constituency to deny that the majority of the people of Ireland believe that they are overtaxed. [Cries of "Order !" and cheers.]
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Order, order ! The hon. Member is evidently anxious to disregard the ruling I have recently given. I hope he will not force me to put the Standing Order in force. I have had to do it in the case of some of his colleagues, and I warn him that if he persists in the course he is pursuing I shall have to do so in his case
  MR. FIELD: I am exceedingly sorry, but I consider it my duty to obey what I believe to be the opinion of the majority of my countrymen, that we are overtaxed— [Cries of "Order !"]
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The conduct of the hon. Member is, in my opinion, grossly disorderly, and I must request him to leave the House during the rest of the sitting.
  MR. FIELD: I will obey.
  The hon. Member for Dublin, St. Patrick, rose and withdrew accordingly, amid laughter and cheers.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  3. Motion made and Question pro posed:—
  "That a sum, not exceeding £18,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1898, for constructing a now Harbour of Refuge at Peterhead."
  MR. JOHN DILLON, who rose amid cries of "Hear, hear," and "Order," said he had been nearly 15 years in the House, and during the whole of that time they had been voting something every year towards Peterhead Harbour. The time had come, he thought, when they ought to have from the Government some definite information as to when the work would be completed.
  *GENERAL RUSSELLsaid he happened to have a villa in the Peterhead district, and he had watched this money being thrown into the sea. Very recently he took the opportunity of visiting the works on the harbour of refuge and consulting with the very able and intelligent engineer in charge. He had put down a Motion to reduce this Vote by £10,000, but after consulting with the engineer and discussing the whole question with those best qualified to judge, he withdrew his Motion, for he came to the conclusion that the only thing to be done was to continue the work if they did not sacrifice the large sum of money that had been already spent upon it. The House must bear in mind that a large convict prison had been built there solely for the purpose of making the harbour of refuge. He was doubtful whether it would be of much use when made. Formerly, before steamers existed, sailing vessels used to take refuge between the heads of the bay, which give protection from the north and north-west winds, the prevalent winds in that part of the country. But now that so much of their carrying trade was done by means of steam transport, it was very doubtful whether a harbour of refuge at that spot would be of any use at all. As far as he could make out, he should never see it finished. The engineer told him the other day that, calculating according to the most favourable circumstances, it could not be finished for twenty-six years. He
  1548
  wished to call the attention of the Committee to the circumstance that originally the scheme was adopted by the gentlemen who sat opposite when they were in office, so that hon. members on the Government side of the House were in no way responsible for this waste of money, as he considered it. Still, he should be very sorry, taking all the circumstances into consideration, if this Vote were to be suspended, and hence that the money which had already been expended on the harbour of refuge should not be put to some use. It was asserted, as a reason of making this harbour of refuge, that it was the only way to employ the convicts, and, as he had said, for that reason a very large convict prison had been built at a cost of about£25,000. At the end of the 26 years, if the work was ever finished, there would be a harbour of refuge magnificent in size, capable of sheltering a large part of the British Navy; but whether it would be of much use was a matter of great doubt. Still, under all the circumstances of the case, seeing that the present Government was not responsible for the scheme being entered into, he hoped the Committee would sanction the continuance of the expenditure and make the best of a bad bargain.
  MR. DILLONsaid that after the remarkable speech they had just listened to, he hoped the Government would re-consider their policy. The hon. Member concluded a strong speech against the Vote by hoping that the Vote would be sanctioned. He had given the Committee the information for which he had himself been seeking in vain; for he had told them on good authority that the harbour would probably not be finished for the next 26 years. They were told 10 years ago that it would be finished before now. In he judgment of the hon. Member who lived in the neighbourhood, when finished it would be a magnificent harbour, but probably there would be no ships to enter it, and it would be perfectly worthless.
  *GENERAL RUSSELL: I did not quite say that, I think, but I do not believe it will be of the use it was originally intended to be when the idea was first conceived, as then most of the merchant traffic was carried in sailing ships.
  MR. DILLON: What was the principle set forth by the hon. Member? It seemed that this harbour of refuge at Peterhead was to cost close on a million sterling. He was told by an hon. Member sitting near him that the sum so far expended on the work was £297,000. Therefore the argument was because you had spent £297,000 on a useless work, you must spend £000,000 more for fear the £297,000 should be wasted. Was there ever such logic t [Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member came from the district and the money would be spent in his own constituency—
  *GENERAL RUSSELL: It is not my constituency.
  MR. DILLON: I beg pardon—in the district in which he lives. I apologise. He admitted, practically speaking, that according to the original intention of those who sanctioned the undertaking, it would be useless—that was to say that it was not going to be of any use that would justify the expenditure of such an enormous sum of money. He was content to put it in that way. A sum of £297,000 had been spent; therefore to prevent that being wasted, they were to spend £000,000 more spread over a period of six years. He saw that the original estimate for Peterhead was £730,000, and £100,000 had been added. In addition to that expenditure, they had, of course, the cost of the convict establishment, and everybody knew that convict labour on such works was an extremely expensive form of labour. He protested against this Vote. He protested against it first of all as a British taxpayer—he could not protest against it as an Irish. He protested against this Vote of the money of the British taxpayer, and although his own contribution to the revenue of this great Empire was extremely small, still he gave it with a most grudging hand. It was but a small amount of income tax that it was his privilege to pay—he wished it was a great deal more; but he gave it with a grudging hand, and he objected to a portion of that income tax being spent on Peterhead Harbour. [Laughter]. And he objected to it all the more because the Chairman had been kind enough to point out that they were at liberty to discuss these Votes on from the point of view of
  1550
  the relative expenditure on these Votes in Ireland and England. He had in his mind at that moment the harbour of Wicklow, in regard to which appeals had repeatedly been made in vain to the Treasury, and in respect of which a most influential deputation, composed not of Nationalists alone, but of Unionists and men of all classes, had waited on the Treasury and on the Chief Secretary for Ireland. That harbour which could be put in repair for a small sum of money, was left to go to ruin, to silt up, the water rushing in and out of a big hole in the breakwater—he had himself inspected the scandalous condition of things. In a moment the whole thing might be swept away, and for the sake of a few thousand pounds they left that scandalous and disgraceful condition of things in a poor country like Ireland, while they were recklessly spending this enormous sum at Peterhead on a work that would be useless. It was a monstrous, an extravagant, waste of money; and they were entitled and bound to raise their voices against such Azotes being passed. He protested against this with all the more confidence and strength because, as he had already said, Peterhead Harbour had been one of the chronic grievances of the House of Commons. It had come up every year for the last ten or fifteen years, and he should unquestionably divide the House against it unless an equivalent amount on a liberal scale was given where it was required in Ireland.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.)was not quite sure whether the hon. Gentleman opposite knew what the origin of this Harbour of Refuge was, or how this Vote came upon the Paper. It was the result of a Committee summoned in 1881 to inquire into various questions in connection with the employment of convicts. They reported that the best method of employing convicts was in the establishment of the most suitable form of public works, and that the most suitable form of public works on which they could be employed was the formation of harbours of refuge; and they recommended Peterhead as the best place on the east coast for constructing such a harbour.

  1551
  In accordance with that recommendation a scheme was prepared by an eminent firm of engineers and sanctioned by the House. The progress of the work had necessarily been slow. He did not think that the House had ever been told that it was likely to be finished by the present time, and he certainly could not hold out any hope of its completion before many years had elapsed. His hon. and gallant Friend's estimate of the time that would be required was probably correct. Quick progress was next to impossible at present on account of the rocky nature of the bottom on which the breakwater had been founded. The sum included for this purpose in the Estimate was the largest sum which they could hope to expend this year, having regard to the difficulties of the work. It was expected when the structure was begun that on the average 500 convicts would be available, but during the past year the average number of available men had not exceeded 250. He supposed he ought to congratulate Scotland upon that fact, but it was not conducive to rapid progress with the work. He trusted that the hon. Member would not Divide the Committee against this proposal. Scotch Members had repeatedly urged that the work was of the utmost importance, and it was a means of employing convict labour usefully.
  SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid that he was at the Home Office when it was decided to undertake this work, and that its main object was to provide employment for convicts. Portland breakwater was at that time approaching conclusion, and there was not a sufficient field for convict labour. The claims of Dover were urged in rivalry with those of Peterhead, and the Scotch Members, who were rather pertinacious in supporting the rights of their country, maintained that the harbour should be at Peterhead, and that Scotland should supply criminals for the purpose of constructing it. [Laughter.] They could not but feel gratified at the fact that the general reform in character and manners in Scotland had now reduced the number of those who could be employed upon the breakwater. He assured the Committee that the work was only decided upon after great consideration by the Home Office. It was a departmental undertaking, dictated by no political or party
  1552
  considerations. If the Committee desired that the harbour should be finished in a shorter time than was now contemplated, they must decide to employ other labour than that of convicts.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that if the object was to provide a harbour of refuge for vessels on the eastern coast of Scotland, the sooner the harbour was finished the better. An inordinate amount of time had already been spent upon the work. The whole coast of Algiers had been supplied with deep water harbours of this nature since this Peterhead harbour was begun.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINexplained that there were great difficulties at Peterhead caused by the nature of the bottom on which the foundations of the breakwater had to be laid. The work could only be proceeded with at certain states of the tides and at low water.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESreferred the hon. Member to the case of the harbour at Bona on the coast of Algiers. In that case great difficulties were encountered on account of the depth of the water, but they were successfully overcome. A rising and falling tide was not a disadvantage when a harbour was being built. It was, on the contrary, an advantage. At Bona there was no tide of the kind. When the Peterhead harbour was begun the science of constructing harbours on hard bottoms was in its infancy. In the last few years new methods had been devised. Bags containing Portland cement or other substances in a fluid state were let down, and the contents solidified when they reached the bottom. The harbour at La Guayra on the Spanish main was constructed in that way. He appreciated the affection for the convicts shown by Her Majesty's Government, but his affections inclined rather to the seamen on our coasts, and for their sakes he was anxious to see this harbour at Peterhead completed.
  MR. P. J. POWERsaid that the construction of harbours of refuge had been recommended at other places besides Peterhead. Waterford, for example had long ago been mentioned by a Commission of experts as one of the best points at which to construct a harbour of refuge on the south coast of Ireland. Nothing, however, had been done, although a harbour could be constructed at Waterford at less cost than at

  1553
  any other place in the south of Ireland. At present Waterford was a fairly good harbour, but there was a bar there which could be removed with ease at a comparatively small cost, and which would then secure a harbour of refuge on that coast which was greatly needed. The Irish people had a right to complain that while they contributed largely to expenditure of this kind it was all for England and Scotland and Wales, nothing whatever being spent in improving the harbours of Ireland.
  *GENERAL RUSSELL, replying to the hon. Member for Lynn Regis, stated that it was impossible to advance the work at Peterhead Harbour more rapidly, and the experiments which the hon. Member had described as being carried out in the case of a Spanish harbour would not be practicable at Peterhead. In the first place there wag a very stormy sea, and it was only possible to work something like 115 days a year out of the 365. The only way the harbour could be completed sooner would be by working at night, and this would quadruple the cost, as the convicts could not be employed during the night. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty had said that the work might progress more rapidly when they got into deeper water, but the information he obained was just the opposite, and he was told that when they got into the deeper water the progress would be even slower than now.
  MR. DILLONsaid that his recollections of the Peterhead Harbour were somewhat different to those of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, but the origin of this work was lost in the mists of antiquity, and its completion would be one of the events of the next century. Nobody knew when the work would be completed, but everybody agreed that it would not be before the next century. The hon. Member for King's Lynn was, of course, as usual, wide of the mark. The primary object of this harbour was not to afford protection to shipping. It had two objects with both of which he sympathised. One was to employ convicts, under healthy circumstances, on the sea coast, and the second was to spend some money in Scotland. Such being the condition of affairs, it did not in the least matter when the harbour was finished, and if it could be kept going for the next half century so much the
  1554
  better. He had listened to the appeal which the Civil Lord of the Admiralty had made to him to withdraw his opposition to this Vote. He would have been delighted to have done so if the Government would have given them some quid pro quo in regard to Irish harbours. They were now asked to vote £12,000, the sum required for this year being £24,000. It was universally admitted, firstly, that the longer the harbour took to complete the better it would be; and secondly, that the supply of convicts in Scotland was scarce, and unless they could be manufactured on a larger scale the harbour could not be built at the present rate with convict labour. Let the Government take say, £10,000 off the sum required fur the year, and give it to Wicklow Harbour. If Scotch convicts were allowed to be employed in the healthy work of harbour construction, why should not Irish convicts be employed in the same way instead of being immersed in Mountjoy and other prisons? There were no convict prisons in Ireland where the Irish convicts had any outdoor occupation, and none where they were employed in building harbours of refuge, though the Irish required them much more than the Scotch. Every argument which could be used in support of convict labour for Peterhead Harbour was applicable in the case of Ireland, where convicts were manufactured out of material which would not be turned into convicts in England and Scotland. In Ireland, packed juries made convicts of men who had committed no crimes.
  *GENERAL RUSSELLcould assure the hon. Gentleman that on the occasion he last visited the prison at Peterhead, a number of Irish convicts were among those employed on the works there.
  MR. DILLONsaid that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman desired to insinuate that the Irish people, whether they lived in this country or in Ireland, contributed more than their share to the criminal jails, he had to reply that the statement; was false. He had heard that charge made before, although there was not one shadow of foundation for it. A criminal judge made the same statement in Australia, and he at once challenged the assertion. It was then shown that while I the Irish did maintain a high ratio as regarded minor offences, when it came to crimes of a grave kind the Irish people

  1555
  were considerably below what would have been their proportion. There was, therefore, no truth in the statement that his countrymen contributed an undue share to any convict prison, and the observation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman was most insulting.
  *GENERAL RUSSELLcould assure the hon. Gentleman that he did not intend the observation as an insult.
  MR. DILLON: It was a very insulting observation.
  *GENERAL RUSSELLsaid that if he had unintentionally hurt the hon. Gentleman's feelings he withdrew the observation, repeating that he did not intend it in any way as an insult.
  MR DILLONaccepted the explanation, and intimated that unless some concession were made in regard to Wicklow or some other Irish harbours, he should be compelled to divide the Committee against the Vote.
  MR. WEIRmaintained that if the work at Peterhead was to be of service it ought to be advanced speedily; if it was not to be of service then it ought to be dropped and the money spent in more useful ways on harbour accommodation elsewhere. He felt it keenly that while there were so many harbours needed all round the coast of Scotland, especially in the north, the Government were practically throwing this large sum of money into the sea. He called attention to the item of, £21,840 for labour and materials for 1897–98, an increase of £404. The engineer-in-chief at Peterhead received £800 a year for 110 days' work, and the resident engineer £750. Was the engineer-in-chief a retired naval or military officer? [Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: "No; he is Mr. John Coode!"] How often did he visit the works? It seemed to him that £150 as expenses was a large item, and he had come to the conclusion that this official was a useless individual, whose services were not wanted. He believed that the resident engineer would do the work quite satisfactorily.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENsupported the appeal of the hon. Member for East Mayo on behalf of Irish harbours. It had been well shown that the money now being spent at Peterhead was spent for an indirect rather than for a direct purpose. At the same time he felt that the claims of the Irish harbours were largely bound up with the claims of
  1556
  the Welsh harbours. For example, there was no communication between mid-Wales and the opposite coast of Ireland, except by the long sea route from Waterford to Milford Haven. There was a harbour on the Irish coast called Roslare, which with a little expenditure of money could be fitted for cross-channel traffic, and by taking Aberdovey on the Welsh coast there would be a third alternative route made between the two coasts, and embracing districts which were at present destitute of communication. The Report of a distinguished civil engineer stated that by an expenditure of less than £100,000 a harbour could be made at Aberdovey with great depth of water at all times of the tide. Anything which would increase the traffic in that district would contribute materially to the prosperity of the population.
  MR. P. J. POWERhoped that the Government would give consideration to the Report of the Royal Commission which recommended the improvement of Waterford as a harbour.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that his position in this matter was simply this—when the work was decided upon the Admiralty were asked to take charge and superintend the execution of the work. It was not a part of the Admiralty policy that this harbour at Peterhead should be built, and the policy of building such works was no concern of the Admiralty. As to the salary of the engineer-in-chief he stated that the work could not be done by the resident engineer. The engineer-in-chief was connected with a firm which had probably the widest experience in this class of work of any engineers to be found. The Government had had their assistance in the preparation of the Dover Harbour plan, and they had designed harbours and dockyards in all parts of the world, and the value of whose advice could hardly be exaggerated. Though the resident engineer was a very competent man he was not in the position to take the place of the engineer-in-chief. The salary of the engineer-in-chief covered all clerical assistance and the payments for draughtsmanship in the office in London, but the travelling expenses were paid apart on a scale sanctioned by the Treasury.
  MR. WEIRproposed, "That Item B (Salaries) be reduced by £300, in respect of the salary of the Chief Engineer."
  MR. DILLONintimated that he contested the whole Vote.
  MR. WEIKsaid he would in that case withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  DR. CLARKremarked that a Royal Commission Reported in favour of a harbour of refuge on the east coast of Scotland which was being constructed, and now it, was proposed to stop the work that £12,000 should be devoted to similar work for Ireland. £10,000 a year had been spent on the construction of a harbour at Holyhead. The west coast of Scotland had plenty of natural harbours, but a harbour of refuge was much needed on the east coast which was often very rough and stormy, and where ships and lives were frequently lost. Convict labour was being used in the construction of the harbour which did not seem likely to be finished for the next 20 or 30 years. Free labour should be employed and more money devoted to the work that it might be finished in the near future.
  Original Question put.
  The Committee divided: Aves, 147; Noes, (Division List, No. 225.)
  4. £189,367, to complete the sum for Rates on Government Property.
  LORD HUGH CECILculled attention to the injustice of the valuation of Woolwich Arsenal for the purpose of contribution in lieu of rates, and asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he would consider appeals from the Government Valuer, inquire into the complaints of the assessment committee, and give them an opportunity of stating their case. The noble Lord stated that the Woolwich Assessment Committee were very much discontented with the way they were treated by the Government Valuer, who appeared to act in a very arbitrary and dictatorial manner, and would give no details as to the basis on which he made his valuation. The Assessment Committee greatly wished to have an opportunity of putting their side of the case before the Treasury.
  MR. J. C. FLYNNdrew attention to the charge of £10,000 for the Metropolitan Fire Brigade. He
  1558
  failed to see why the Metropolitan Fire Brigade should get this subsidy from the Government tiny more than those of Dublin, Cork, Belfast, or anywhere else. No doubt there was a considerable amount of Government property in London, but so there was in Dublin also; and considering; the enormous rateable valuation of the metropolis, he thought, that, Dublin was even more entitled to a contribution than London was. It was a paltry and contemptible thing that the Metropolitan Fire Brigade, which, was under municipal management, should come on the general taxpayers in this way. Either the item should be struck out of the rates altogether, or the fire insurance companies, who made such huge profits, should subsidise this £10,000. Really, when property was insured up to the full value, the municipally had no interest in extinguishing a fire. The insurance companies had obviously the paramount interest in the matter.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLEScalled attention to the item of "rates on houses occupied by representatives of foreign Powers," which had gone up this year by £800. He was glad to see this figure in the Votes, because he thought nil remissions granted on the ground of comity should be subjected to the control and criticism of the House of Commons; but he should like to have an explanation of how it was the charge had increased by 25 per cent. He did not know whether the habit was growing among foreign Ambassadors and Attachés of taking larger houses than they formerly occupied, but, if so, considering the enormous and increasing proportion that rates now bear to rental, the item would become a very large one in future years, more especially if this country should be invaded by a wealthier type of Attaché.
  MR. B. L. COHENwished to see the contribution to the Metropolitan Fire Brigade increased rather than struck off the Votes. He agreed, however, that the fire insurance companies did not pay as much as they ought towards expenditure which went very much to increase their own profits. He pointed out that while the contribution had not been added to for a great many years, the expense of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade, which falls on the County Council, had increased by an

  1559
  enormous sum in the last few years, while he claimed that the work of the Brigade was done with an efficiency which was a model to any provincial or continental town.
  CAPTAIN PIRIEcrew attention to the fact that while the War Department properly contributed to rates Volunteer drill-halls escaped without any contribution at all.
  MR. WEIRasked for an explanation of the item of rates paid on behalf of occupiers of apartments in Royal palaces.
  *MR. HANBURYsaid that as to the question of remission of rates, they were not really remissions, as there was no power to enforce the payment by representatives of foreign countries. For some time the arrangement was that the rates on houses occupied by representatives of foreign Governments should be paid by the landlords. But the foreign Governments protested, and now it was arranged that some of the rates should be paid by Her Majesty's Government and the remander by the Diplomatic Body. This arrangement was confined to those representatives whose Governments gave reciprocal privileges to our Diplomatic Service. The reason why the item in the Votes on account of these rates had gone un was that one house, occupied by a foreign Attaché, was a great deal above the rateable value of the houses generally occupied by officials in that position. As to the Metropolitan Fire Brigade grant, he agreed that the contribution ought to be considered by the Treasury. This contribution was made originally because the Government did not pay their full share of the rates in respect of Government buildings. Now that the system— which he believed to be just—of the Government paying in the same proportion as private individuals had been introduced, the argument for making this contribution to the Fire Brigade was not so strong. As to the rating of Volunteer drill halls, one reason why the Government did not think that they should pay the rates was their opinion that the localities might fairly be asked to contribute so much to the local Volunteer corps. As to the rating of Woolwich Arsenal, the policy of the Government was to pay rates in the same proportion as the private person. But they felt it necessary to insist that the valuation of Government property should be made by
  1560
  Government Valuers. Government property differed very largely from other property, and was situated in many different localities. The Government could not place themselves entirely in the hands of the local authorities, who might make one estimate of the property here and another there, and possibly run up the valuation too heavily against the Government. As to Woolwich, there was less ground for complaint than elsewhere. Woolwich had been specially favoured. The question of revaluation came up, and the contention was that the arsenal was closely analogous to a large private manufacturing establishment, and ought to be rated on the same principle. The Government agreed, and, as had been done in no other case, an outside valuer —a gentleman from Manchester—was called in to assist the Government Valuer. Objections to the valuation were raised by the local assessment committee. They contended that the dockyard ought to be treated in the same way as the arsenal; but the Treasury properly resisted that contention on the ground that there was no comparison between the dockyard and private property. The result of the arsenal valuation was that the net rateable value had been raised by £15,000; and he, personally, believed that if, as the assessment committee had desired, a local valuer had been appointed instead of the gentleman from Manchester to assist the Government Valuer, there would have been no complaint at all. With respect to all Government, and especially War Office, property, the Government had steadily refused to allow local valuers to be employed. The War Office were exceedingly jealous of strangers being admitted to their premises, and even the Government Valuer had to obtain a special permission. If any one were allowed to visit the arsenals and dockyards, there would be an end of all secrecy. As to the appeal which was asked for, he would point out that the Assessment Committee had been thrown over by the Plumstead Overseers and by the Woolwich Local Board, who had written to the Treasury thanking the Government for the increase in the arsenal valuation, and saying that they had nothing to complain of. He had himself gone into the matter carefully, and he was satisfied that there was no grievance, as well as the hon. Member

  1561
  for Woolwich. He saw no reason for reopening the case.
  LORD HUGH CECILsaid that Plumstead had been dealt with in a. most generous manner, and, therefore, it was not surprising that the overseers were satisfied. The arsenal had not been valued in a spirit satisfactory to the Woolwich Assessment Committee. The Woolwich Union did not receive an adequate return. He believed that the Woolwich Local Board had been induced to acquiesce in the Treasury arrangement on account of the pressure exerted by the Government Valuer. The Assessment Committee maintained that the arrangement was a very unfair one and they accepted it not without some discontent. They wanted to know the grounds upon which the valuation was made, and he thought that in fairness they were entitled to an opportunity for investigating the case of the Treasury.
  DR. CLARKthought that if the Government paid rates like everyone else for watching and lighting they ought to get the cost of their own watching deducted as in the case of other large ratepayers. The local authorities could not have subventions from Parliament and at the same time require the Government to pay the same rates that other people were paying. He was glad, therefore, to hear that the Secretary to the Treasury intended to reconsider the matter.
  Vote agreed to.

  CLASS II.
  5. £19,576, to complete the sum for House of Commons Offices. Agreed to.
  6. Motion made, and Question proposed: —
  "That a sum, not exceeding £132,859, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments."
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEasked whether the President of the Board of Trade intended to take action on the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the administration of the Mercantile Marine Fund, advising the reorganisation of the
  1562
  Fund. He noticed there was an enormous amount of money spent yearly in bringing home distressed British seamen from abroad; and he thought the House should be supplied with information as to the causes which lead to this expenditure. He would also like to know when it was likely the House would obtain the promised Return of merchant seamen. A Return had been supplied to the Departmental Committee on the Undermanning of Ships, but there was the greatest possible difference of opinion between various competent authorities as to its accuracy, and as the Registrar General of Merchant Seamen had better opportunities than anyone else for preparing such a Return, he hoped the completion of the one on which he was now engaged would be facilitated in every way.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESjoined with his right hon. Friend in pressing for the Return of merchant seamen. He was quite unable to conceive on what methods the Returns of the Board of Trade, on this subject were prepared. They seemed to be got up anyway or anyhow. Certainly the Return of merchant seamen was absolutely delusive.
  *MR. CUMMING MACDONAsaid he must join issue with his hon. Friend on the subject of the Board of Trade Returns. A very remarkable instance of Board of Trade Returns had been published that morning in its Report on the loss of life at sea, which reflected marked credit on the Department. That Report had given the fullest details in admirable form, accompanied by several maps of a most artistic and useful character.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid his hon. Friend the Member for Lynn Regis was always rather severe in his criticisms, but he did not always mean what he said. [Laughter.] He was sure the Returns which were prepared by the Board of Trade were prepared with the greatest care. With regard to the mercantile marine he could assure the right hon. Baronet opposite that as full a Return as possible was made, and the right hon. Gentleman admitted the difficulty of making such a Return as he asked for. He would, however, look into the matter and see what could be done. With regard to the administration of the Mercantile Marine Fund, undoubtedly the whole system was rather anomalous and out of date. He

  1563
  had hoped that it might have been possible to have dealt with the matter in the present Session, but such a reconstruction or reorganisation as was suggested could not be carried out unless they had a larger contribution from the Treasury, and that was not possible this year. He hoped, however, that he should be able to deal with the matter next Session, and, although he did not commit himself to every detail of the recommendations of the Departmental Committee, he hoped they would be able to proceed somewhat on those lines.
  MR. LOUGHthought the President of the Board of Trade might have given more assistance to the Home Office in the dispute between the cabdrivers of the Metropolis and the railway companies. The Board of Trade was the Government Department which had to deal with the railway companies, and if the right hon. Gentleman would use his influence with them perhaps an amicable settlement might be arrived at. The cabdrivers and proprietors were all united now, and were most anxious to arrive at a settlement, but the railway companies by standing too stiffly their rights and a little more than their rights had prevented it. With regard to the service of workmen's trains in the metropolis in the early hours of the morning there were one or two lines which treated the matter reasonably, but only one or two. The consequence was that the vast population of Londoners who travelled by these trains had to submit to great hardships. He suggested that the time at which these trains ran should be extended. He suggested that in the Return which was made of the trade of Great Britain and Ireland the trade of Ireland should be given separately. If this were done the value of this excellent Return would be greatly increased.
  MR. WEIRasked whether and portion of the £800 which had been spent in fees and expenses under the Conciliation Act of 1896 had been spent in respect of the Penrhyn quarries dispute. He noticed that £2,800 was asked for the Light Railways Commission, and he wished to know if any of the light railways were in progress. He thought the salary of the right hon. Gentleman was inadequate— [laughter]—having regard to the many duties he had to perform. He called
  1564
  attention to the overcrowded state of railway carriages, especially in and around London.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: That is a matter over which the President of the Board of Trade has no control.
  MR. WEIRasked if the right hon. Gentleman would endeavour to introduce legislation in order to bring about a better state of things.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid that was as much in the power of the hon. Member as of the Board of Trade.
  MR. WEIRsaid he should have then to adopt other means of bringing the matter to the notice of the Department. He complained that the Patent, Office took money without any inquiry, sometimes permitting 50 patents for the same article, and moved to reduce the Vote by the sum of £1,000.
  [After the usual interval, the Chair was taken by Mr. JOHN ELLIS.]
  MR. JOHN BURNSjoined in the appeal of the hon. Member for Islington to the President of the Board of Trade to renew his mediatory efforts in connection with the Privileged Cab question. The President of the Board of Trade had some Parliamentary control and some official regulation over the railways, and it seemed to him that if the right hon. Gentleman would again appeal to the managers of the railway cab companies he had not the least doubt that his efforts would be successful. The other day a director of one of the largest railway companies went so far as to say to him that if the cabmen would terminate the dispute and return to their situations as heretofore, he could almost guarantee that the railway companies would be prepared to make some settlement and some satisfactory compromise with the striking cab drivers. He believed that if this view was properly exploited by the President of the Board of Trade the dispute might be terminated on terms advantageous both to the travelling public and to the railway companies, and certainly satisfactory to the cab drivers. The reason he pressed this was because the railway companies, while declining to accede to the abolition of the privileged cab in railway stations, had been driven

  1565
  to adopt an interchangeable privileged cab system, which was in itself a step in the right direction. That should indicate to the President of the Board of Trade what the views of the companies were. It indicated that the privileged system had broken down, and had broken down, to some extent, with the concurrence of the railway companies themselves. He hoped the President of the Board of Trade would seize every opportunity of trying to persuade the railway companies to meet the men, and if they declined he should endeavour on his own initiative to do for the travelling public, by the abolition of the privileged cab system, what he had so well endeavoured to do for the Bethesda quarrymen. When he reminded the Committee that the cabmen had spent £20,000 on this dispute, he thought they would agree that that was an indication that they had some grievances, and when the fact was taken into consideration that the cab masters were on the side of the men, he thought he had shown sufficient reasons why an effort should be made to bring this dispute to an end as soon as possible.
  MR. M. AUSTINdesired to raise the question of the appointment of a correspondent for agriculture in Ireland. He put a Question to the President of Board of Trade on that subject last year, but although he expressed himself sympathetically, he believed that nothing had been done up to the present. The fact that out of the entire population of Ireland 78 per cent, were entirely dependent on agriculture showed there was a strong case for an independent correspondent for Ireland. From time to time reports had appeared in the Labour Gazette, regarding the position of the agricultural labourers in England, Scotland, and Wales, but during the past four years only on two occasions had there been any direct reference to the exact position of the agricultural labourers in Ireland. It was very necessary that they should have a direct representative from the Board of Trade in Ireland. Under the present system the gentleman in England paid a cursory visit to Ireland, and made a, report on the then existing condition of affairs, and that single visit did him for the entire year, but what would do in March would not do in September; and he asked the right hon. Gentleman that, as he required
  1566
  regular reports from England to be supplied to the Labour Gazette, he should also direct that an independent report of the agricultural condition of the labourer in Ireland should be supplied to the same journal. He would also point out that while four general reports had been supplied from Wales, not a single general report had been supplied from Ireland. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to see his way to appoint an independent, correspondent for Ireland.
  MR. T. LOUGHsaid that it would be interesting in have from the right hon. Gentleman what had been done under the light Railways Act—how far the Board of Trade had approved of the applications that had been made under the Act, and how far it was working satisfactorily.
  MR. DILLONsaid he wished to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the treatment of certain of the Wexford pilots. He understood that the Board of Trade had the power to pass certain Provisional Orders making alterations in pilotage districts, and sometimes these Orders very materially affected the vested interests of pilots. There was a Pilotage Provisional Order before the House this Session, and that had reference to the harbour of Rosslare. That harbour was only used by the steamers of one English company, and up to the present it had been necessary for any steamer going into that port to take a pilot on board. A Provisional Order was the process of being passed by which the district was to be altered, and by which ships would be allowed to go into that harbour without taking a pilot. He was not concerned to argue the question whether that was right or wrong, but he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it was fair to treat the Wexford pilots in this way? He was given to understand that the Order would very seriously affect their earnings. The Wexford pilots were 19 in number, and if the port of Rosslare, which was at the entrance of the Wexford harbour district, were freed from pilotage, much of the trade would be taken away from Wexford. He thought that, in the circumstances, it was only fair that the Board of Trade should make the Wexford pilots the ordinary allowance which in such circumstances was usually made, he would be glad to know what was the intention

  1567
  of the Board of Trade with regard to these pilots.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he wished to make an appeal to the Secretary to the Treasury, or rather to the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to a very deserving though small number of public officials. He referred to those who were known as abstractors in the General Register and Record Office of Shipping and Seamen. They had to perform work of a by no means light class, which could not be done by men who had not a certain amount of experience and mental training. So far back as 1867 a Committee was appointed to deal with the organisation of this office, and they decided that the work done by these clerks, then called writers or verifiers, was such as was done by clerks of the lower division. In 1887 another Committee reported that the whole organisation of the office should be placed on the basis of a lower division office. In 1889 the authorities at the Treasury departed from the views of the Ridley Commission, and placed these clerks in the category of what were known as abstractors—in fact, made them, so to speak, a class by themselves. By this all they gained was a new name and a maximum increase of, £9. It was true that they were also put on the Pension List, but their pension was a very visionary one, and in accepting it they had to surrender a claim which they had to a gratuity of £100. In 1892 or 1893 they presented a memorial to the Treasury, and in 1895 they went to the head of their Department, Sir Courtenay Boyle, and he frankly admitted that they were doing work similar to that being done by other clerks in the same office who received a very much higher salary. It was also admitted that their rate of increment was very small. Encouraged by this statement, they again asked the Treasury in 1895 to consider the advisability of opening a certain number of posts in connection with the Mercantile Marine Office to them. The grievance of these men was that, as public servants performing somewhat high-class clerical work, they might expect, after 22 years' service, to receive the magnificent stipend of £150. There were only 17 of them, and they were serving in an office with 30 other clerks, and the total cost of the office showed that the 30 senior clerks
  1568
  received in salary six times the amount received by these men. What they felt most acutely was that they could never rise to a higher position. He thought the Committee would admit that it was scarcely fair to keep a few men doing practically the same work as others at a lower rate of pay, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was not possible that something could be done to remedy the grievances to which he had called attention?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had begun his remarks by appealing to the Secretary to the Treasury, and although he subsequently corrected himself and appealed to him, he thought that, on the whole, the grievances to which the hon. Gentleman had called attention were a matter for the Treasury. This case was another illustration of the fact that, although the House of Commons in the abstract always desired economy, yet in individual cases of this kind hon. Gentlemen were to be found urging on the Treasury an increase of pay all round. He did not dispute the fact that the gentlemen referred to were competent for the work which they did. At the same time he disputed the assertion that they were doing work which was the same as that done by others who were more highly paid. Even if it were so, that was a circumstance which occurred in every department of business. However conciliatory they might wish to be, it was impossible to go- on raising salaries in the way that had been suggested. Two men might be sitting side by side at a desk and doing work which appeared to be very much the same kind of work; yet one of the men was a man who would anywhere command better wages than the other. As far as these gentlemen were concerned, it must be remembered that they were put in a better position than they at one time occupied. At one time they had no permanent employment, and were entitled to no pension. Now they had a permanency, and their salaries would rise to £150 a year. He did not hesitate to say that he should be glad if they received higher payment; but he did not know that the payment was inadequate for the work done, and certainly theirs was a better position than they were in a few years ago. The hon. Member for

  1569
  East Mayo had brought forward the question of the pilots of Rosslare. Not having known he was going to refer to that question, and being unable to bear in mind all the details of a great Department like the Board of Trade, he was not in a position to give as sufficient an answer as he might desire. His impression was that the Board of Trade had little or nothing to do with the matter; it was a matter dealt with by the Pilot Board of the district, of which he believed the Board of Trade nominated one member.
  MR. DILLONwas sorry to interrupt, but both sides had been arguing out the matter before the heads of the Department at the Board of Trade during the past week.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid no doubt the Board of Trade had some power, as they were bringing forward a Bill in the House of Commons; but he thought they were acting ministerially on local initiative. If the hon. Member had mentioned that there had been a conference at the Board of Trade on the subject he would have said what he now said—that he would make inquiries as to what took place with a view of endeavouring to see if anything could be done in the direction desired. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member for Islington thought he was not sufficiently severe on the railway companies. He should like to know what the view of the railway companies was. [A laugh.] He confessed that he did not attempt to be severe with them; that was not his function. He thought his duty was best done by being, if possible, on good terms with the railway companies. The powers of the Board of Trade over the railway companies were extremely limited; but he was bound to say that with hardly a single exception the representations they made to the companies were generally very fairly considered and very often their recommendations were acted upon, not because the Board had any power, but the railway companies knew that they could not afford to be indifferent to the wishes of a Government Department representing the public. He had no reason whatever to complain of the way in which the railway companies received the representations of the Board. They must all remember a recent case in which the intervention of the Board of Trade had the effect of preventing what would
  1570
  have been a deplorable strike. That intervention was in no way resented by the railway company; on the contrary, it was welcomed, and the result was highly satisfactory to all concerned. So that when the hon. Member talked about his not being sufficiently severe to the railway companies, he must remember that most of what they could do was by way of persuasion. With regard to the matter of the maps, he had already said that he thought it a matter of great importance to the trading community that they should be published as they were before, and he had every hope that the railway companies would accede to it. ["Hear, hear!"] Then with regard to the cab strike, to which reference had been made by the same hon. Member and by the hon. Member for Battersea. The latter had referred to the fact that he had during the strike made some representations to the railway companies. He confessed that he had some sympathy with the cabmen in the effort they made to get rid of the disability under which they laboured. He had a soft corner in his heart for the London cabmen. ["Hear, hear!"] They sometimes heard him much abused, though not so much in recent years as of old; but, as far as he was concerned, he had rarely mot with a case of incivility in a cabman; on the contrary, he had often had occasion to be very much satisfied with the way in which he had been treated by them. ["Hear, hear!"] If he could have been of any assistance in the late strike, he should have been glad. He did communicate with the railway companies, but they stated that they could not accede to the men's demands without causing great inconvenience to the travelling public, and when a great company managing its own affairs made a statement of that kind, the head of a public department with no power to enforce his views could go no further. He knew that the Home Office endeavoured to bring about a settlement; and he was glad to hear from the hon. Member for Battersea that there was a disposition on the part of the railway companies, now that the strike was over and the battle won, to give terms that would be acceptable to the cabmen. If he could do anything to assist to that end, he should be glad if his good offices were available. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member for Islington asked for some information as

  1571
  to the operation of the Light Railways Act. The position was this. Twice a year, in November and in May, the Light Railway Commissioners considered the applications made during the previous six months. In the first six months the number of applications for light railways was about 36. Nearly all had been dealt with. Inquiries had been held in almost every case, and as far as he knew the results had been eminently satisfactory. To illustrate the working of the Act in the reduction of costs in connection with railways, he might mention that last Session a railway was applied for in the ordinary way and the Bill was withdrawn. The railway was to have cost £400,000. Application for the same line was made to the Light Railway Commissioners, and after a two hours' inquiry the scheme was passed; and the whole cost of the line and expenses, instead of £400,000, would now be only £60,000. That alone was a sufficient indication of the enormous advantage that was likely to accrue from the Act. ["Hear, hear!"] He was not quite sure how many applications had been received in the second period up to the present moment; but a month ago he understood that the number amounted to about 50. It would be seen that the Act was working satisfactorily and economically. There would naturally be some delay in issuing the first orders, because it was rather a complicated proceeding and it was necessary to be extremely careful in drawing up these first orders, as they would probably be taken as models for the rest; but there was no reason to think that any unnecessary delay would occur. He would be sorry to hold out any hope that the Department would be able to separate British trade returns from Irish trade returns, for he was informed that such a separation would lead to considerable complication of accounts, and would not serve any very useful purpose. He would, however, inquire further into the matter. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty had put various conundrums to him, and he would endeavour to answer them. The sum of £800 to which the hon. Member had referred was the amount which it was expected would be required to meet charges which might become payable in connection with the working of the Conciliation Act in the ensuing year. Then the hon. Member
  1572
  asked how he accounted for the increase in the amount taken for special services. The largest apparent increase was the item of £2,000 for fees and travelling and other expenses in connection with special inquiries. That was, in fact, a transfer from the Treasury Vote and not an increase. It was considered to be better financially that each Department should be answerable for the amount which it spent than that the Treasury should be responsible for the whole amount. The money was required for the purposes of the various Departmental Committees now sitting at the Board of Trade. There was also an increase of £730 due to the expenses incurred in connection with the transmission of seamen's wages from certain Continental ports. Under this system the wages were taken from the seamen and transmitted to their homes. That had been done at Dunkirk, and the result had been so satisfactory that it had been resolved to extend the practice to three other Continental ports. Everyone who desired the welfare of our seaport communities must be glad to hear of these arrangements. Then £600 was expenditure in connection with light railways. This expenditure would be made up for by the fees received. The hon. Member for Limerick had expressed dissatisfaction with the Labour Gazette. Differing from the hon. Member, he believed that the information given in the Gazette was very much prized, and was of great service. The hon. Member had asked him to appoint a Labour correspondent in Ireland. The circumstances in Ireland were, however, essentially different from the circumstances in England or Scotland. He had inquired into the matter, and he could assure the hon. Member that if he believed that the results which the hon. Member anticipated would follow from the employment of a correspondent in Ireland, he would gladly make the appointment; but from information received by the Board of Trade, he considered that the appointment would not have the valuable results which the hon. Member expected.
  MR. DILLONexpressed satisfaction with the right hon. Gentleman's reply to his representations.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he maintained that one or two posts in the Mercantile Marine Office ought to have been given

  1573
  to the abstractors. It was true that they had not entered the service by open competitive examination, but they had proved themselves capable of doing the work.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid that the Board of Trade could not ride rough-shod, so to speak, over the rules of the, Civil Service. It was not in the power of the Department to do as the hon. Member wished. He had, he found, omitted to notice one, point which had been raised. He was surprised that any complaint should have been made with regard to the fees charged in the Patent Office. Those fees, as the Committee knew, had been largely reduced with the best results. They were now extremely moderate, and could not be said to bear hardly upon inventors. The scale of fees was arranged in such a way as made it extremely easy for an inventor to obtain his patent, and the present plan had given great satisfaction. He did not say that a time might not arrive when even still more liberal treatment might be accorded to patentees, but it was too soon as yet to contemplate a change. A considerable amount of money was being spent in improving the accommodation at the Patent Office, there being every desire to encourage inventors.
  MR. WEIRinsisted Hint the Patent office ought not to be a profit-making Department, and, as a pro lest against the existing system, moved to reduce the Vote by £1,090. The receipts of the Office were now £205,000, of which only £60,000 was spent in the office. There was therefore a profit of £145,000.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEthought it unfair that inventors should be penalised for the benefit of the revenue.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid that great care was taken to render it easy for an inventor to protect his patent. Any inventor who desired to protect his patent could have protection for nine months for,£1. He could have four years' subsequent protection for £4, and as he went on he paid, £1 for every year. Thus for £14 he secured protection for 14 years.
  MR. WEIRexpressed the opinion that some examining body should be set up, in that a poor inventor might be informed whether his patent was of any value or not before he was involved in any further expense.
  COLONEL MILWARDcould not see that there was the slightest hardship in regard to the fees which were charged at the present moment. Patents, as they all knew, formed very valuable property, and they were extremely valuable to the inventor when they were worth am thing at all. If the State received a small sum for fees on patents, he was sure that must be recouped many times over if the invention was a success. As far as the system of examination was concerned it was carried out in America, but not, he believed, to the satisfaction of the inhabitants. It was impossible for any board of examiners, however clever they might be, to state at once, or, for that matter, even after examination, whether there was not something which had escaped their attention, which anticipated the patent. There was no real cause of complaint, and he hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment.
  COLONEL DENNYwas also of opinion that the hon. Member for Ross-shire had no real ground to complaint. He had had a good deal to do with patents, and he knew that the fees which were paid for researches, etc., to patent agents, came to a great deal more than had to be paid to the Governmen. Very often those researches were eminently unsatisfactory, and he must say that a system whereby a man might pay a patent agent a large sum of money, pay a trifling fee to the Governmen, and then find the patent was not worth the paper it was written upon, because it had been anticipated, was not altogether satisfactory. With regard to what the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had last spoken had said about America, he had had to do with many American patentees, and they all seemed to be much better pleased with their own system than with that of this country. The great initial expense in patents did not come from the Government, but from the private investigations an inventor made himself before he found out whether his patent was valuable or not. He thought if the President of the Board of Trade could devise some improvement in this public Department whereby a patentee, poor or rich, could have some ground of security that his patent had not been anticipated, it would

  1575
  be one monument to the right hon. Gentleman's political memory which would last longer than many of the useful monuments he had himself erected.
  MR. BURNSobserved that the hon. and gallant Colonel had hit one of the blots of the patent system, and had asked for a suggestion to remedy the extravagant prices which poor inventors had to pay to patent agents. At the present time, mainly through the lack of a register of patents properly undertaken by the Department and brought up to date, many workmen would go and pay their initial fee for provisional protection, would effect their patent, go back again, and through the absence of a register of patents which everyone ought to be able to have access to on payment of a trifling fee, would be lured on to develop patents which a register of patents would at once have shown them had already been anticipated. He would suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that he should consult with the chief of the Patent Office —a well-informed official—and see whether it was not possible, even at a cost of £1,000 or £2,000, to have a register of patents, by means of which protection could be given to many poor, and also rich, patentees, who would thus be saved from the sharks and patent agents who frequently made many hundreds of pounds out of rich inventors by urging them to continue patents and developments of patents which they would discontinue doing were the patent agents to tell them the truth, or the inventors to have the means of finding it out for themselves.
  Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £131,859, be granted for the said Service."
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn. Original Question put, and agreed to.
  7. Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £29,215, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898, for a grant in aid of the Mercantile Marine Fund."
  MR. WEIRurged the desirableness of having Norwegian lights fixed on the coast of Ross-shire. They were now in use on the coast of Argyllshire.
  CAPTAIN BETHELLasked whether the Board of Trade had nearly completed the communication between one lighthouse and another and the stations on the mainland, and whether electric communication with the lightships had been satisfactorily effected.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked for some information with regard to the electric communication with lighthouses, how far the system had gone, and what was to be effected in the ensuing year.
  CAPTAIN PIRIEmoved, as an Amendment, "That a sum not exceeding £25,000, be granted for the said Service." He referred to the establishment of electric communication between the lighthouses and the mainland. This experiment had now been going on for upwards of four years, and they had by no means reached finality. Every expert who had considered the subject and the Report of the Commissioners had shown that the experiment was most unsatisfactory and had led to no good result. The money would be better used to increase the number of lighthouses or fog signals so as to prevent accidents than in useless attempts to establish communication between the lighthouses and the mainland. The money spent on communication between lighthouses and the shore should be made to go as far as possible, especially as regarded Scotland. The Scotch coasts were notably deficient in lighthouses and fog signals. The secretary of Lloyds, writing to the Plymouth Chamber of Commerce, stated that the experience of Lloyds proved that the best means of diminishing loss of life round the coasts was the establishment of lighthouses and fog signals, which prevented casualties, rather than of telegraphic installations, which only availed after a casualty had taken place. Merchant shipping increased round the coasts of Scotland, and especially the north coast, every year. At present there was no fog signal between the Atlantic and Aberdeen. He moved to reduce the Vote.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid he understood the hon. Member to advocate that all means of electrical communication between lightships and the shore, for the purpose of signalling, should be abolished. His argument that the money should be spent on lighthouses was one that the

  1577
  Committee should not consider. If more lighthouses were wanted they should be provided, but the question whether electrical communication was good or bad must stand by itself, apart from whether more lighthouses were wanted. The Royal Commission of 1892 recommended a large number of electrical communications on our coasts, which had since been completed, and other recommendations would be carried out without delay.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he could not understand that anyone who knew the situation in which lighthouses and lightships were should desire that they should be cut off from communication with the land. In the outlying sands on the east coast of England it would be the salvation of thousands of lives a year if there was electrical communication with the lightships. He suggested that the President of the Board of Trade might inform himself as to the interesting experiments which had been initiated by an Italian scientist for transmitting electricity without wires or apparatus along waves of ether. That was a direction in which some money might well be spent in the hope of avoiding prospective expenditure hereafter. He trusted the hon. and gallant Member would not persist in his proposal to give up the attempt to establish most necessary and useful communication between lightships and the shore.
  CAPTAIN PIRIEremarked that if the Government would give an assurance that they intended to strike out fresh lines and investigate the recent discovery of Martoni he would be delighted to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. RITCHIEmentioned that £600 of the money asked for in the Vote was for experiments in connection with the system of communicating through space.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  8.£8, to complete the sum for Bank-ruptcy Department of the Board of Trade.—Agreed to.
  9. £34,291, to complete the sum for Board of Agriculture.
  MR. CHANNINGasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the
  1578
  Department had considered the advisability of extending the facilities for the voluntary use of the tests which were applied in Denmark and France in regard to tuberculosis. The results of the experiments on the Continent certainly tended to establish the accuracy of the test in the great majority of instances, and its general adoption would enable agriculturists to distinguish between healthy and unhealthy animals in their herds. Whatever might be the report of the Royal Commission, there could be little doubt that the general adoption of the experiments, which had been carried out with some success by the hon. Member for Midlothian on his estate in Scotland, would result in enormous saving to farmers at comparatively little cost. Had the Department considered the advisability of not waiting till the Report of the Commission was issued and of providing the means of carrying out this test in different parts of the country under supervision by the Board of Agriculture? Such a step would be a great boon to agriculturists. Only a short time ago the president of the French Shorthorn Society had written to the president of the Shorthorn Society in Great Britain stating that English stock could no longer be imported for sale to France, because the breeders had refused to sell their stock under this test. At least one-fifth of the stock of the country was contaminated by this disease, and its extermination would mean millions of pounds in the pockets of English agriculturists.
  MR. LEES KNOWLESsaid that as he introduced this subject to the notice of the House of Commons, and as the largest cattle market in the kingdom was in his constituency, he felt he had some right to speak on the question. It was only reasonable to wait for the Report of the Commission before expecting the Department to do anything. The test which the hon. Member referred to was quite as much a Local Government Board as a Board of Agriculture question. The chairman of the Commission was now busy preparing his Report.
  *MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEsaid that he wished to make a suggestion with regard to the cultivation of orchards. He suggested some time ago that a commission of inquiry should be instituted into the state of the orchards in the principal cider-producing districts of

  1579
  England, and that the Government should establish certain experimental farms in those districts. As a result of these suggestions a gentleman had recently revived the cider industry in Kent, and last February celebrated there what was called "Arbor Day"—an institution well known in America, where it had produced the best results. Arbor Day was instituted in the United States by a private individual 25 years ago. The notion was warmly supported by the Government, and on the first celebration over a million trees were planted; and a great number each succeeding year, so that in some parts quite a change had been effected in the appearance of the country. The gentleman who had started the institution at the village of Eynsford, in Kent, had done so with the intention of promoting the planting of vintage apples and pears in that county. He (Mr. Radcliffe Cooke) was invited on the occasion, and after the trees had been planted a meeting was held, at which two resolutions were passed. One was:—
  "That, in view of the importance of the cider industry to this country, and the capability of vastly extending it to keep pace with the growing demand for genuine English cider, this meeting urges the appointment of a Commission for the purpose of inquiring into the condition of our orchards all over the kingdom, and the establishment by the State of experimental farms for the cultivation and dissemination of approved varieties of vintage fruit."
  The other resolution was: —
  "That this meeting urges the importance of encouraging the planting in Kent of vintage varieties of apples such as were formerly abundant in the county, and the introduction of prime cider fruits, many of which are also excellent keepers and cookers."
  Copies of the resolutions were sent to the President of the Board of Agriculture. They elicited the following reply: —
  "Board of Agriculture,
  "4, Whitehall-place, London, S.W.,
  "26th March 1897.
  No. 582/97.
  "Sir,—I am directed by the Board of Agriculture to thank you for your letter of the 3rd inst., communicating to me resolutions adopted at a meeting, held at Eynsford on Arbor Day,' 27th ult., and I am to say the Board take note of the various views expressed. The Board are in hearty sympathy with any well-directed efforts which can be made for the improvement of orchards in this country, but they are not at present disposed to think that they themselves could, with advantage, take action in the particular direction indicated. The appointment of a Royal Commission would
  1580
  scarcely appear to be required in order to bring to light the bad condition of certain apple orchards in the cider-making counties, and it is understood that the measures necessary for their improvement are already, as a rule, within the knowledge of fruit-growers.
  "Nor do the Board think that the intervention of the State, with regard to the supply of young trees of good descriptions of vintage fruit would be well justified, inasmuch as such trees can readily be obtained at reasonable prices through the ordinary trade channels.— I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
  (Signed)" T. H. ELLIOT, Secretary.
  "E. D. Till, Esq.,
  Priory, Eynsford, Dartford.
  Sympathy was always largely kept in stock in the Government Departments— [laughter]—but, as the above letter showed, steps were invariably taken by the Department to find plausible reasons for not doing the thing they declared they were in complete sympathy with. The reply of the Board of Agriculture did not thoroughly satisfy the gentleman to whom it was addressed, and he wrote to the Board on April 1, 1897, as follows: —
  "I thank you for your letter (582/97) by which I regret to learn that your Board are not able to take action in the direction of the resolution passed at the public meeting on February 27th. I have found extreme difficulty in obtaining good 6 ft. standards of both apple and pear of vintage varieties, and indeed had to place inferior sorts instead of the superior descriptions I wanted, such, for instance, as Foxwhelp, Dymock Red, Kingston Black, and Joeby Crab; neither could I get Barland nor Taynton Squash pear trees.
  "If, with your wider experience, you will kindly tell me where good specimens of these or other proved varieties are obtainable, I shall be greatly obliged. I fear you take too favourable, a view of the situation as regards supplies of young trees, except possibly from French nurseries.—I am, dear Sir, yours faithfully,
  "E. D TILL."
  A month elapsed before any answer came to that letter. Meanwhile, Mr. Till had applied to all known dealers, and had found that the trees could not be supplied. The reply of the Board of Agriculture was as follows: —
  "Sir,—I am directed by the Board of Agriculture to advert to your letter of 1st inst., and with reference to your request to be referred by this Department to fruit tree growers or dealers from whom you could obtain good specimens of young cider apple trees. I am to say that the Board do not see their way to depart from their practice of abstaining from selecting or recommending particular persons or firms."
  The Board, therefore, took a month to state what the established practice of the Department was. [Laughter.] It was evident that the Board had endeavoured to find mil whether the statements they had made in their first letter could be substantiated, and, finding they could not, the Board fell back upon "the established practice" of the Department. His friend, sending him the above letter, wrote: —
  "I enclose the reply of the Hoard of Agriculture. They abstain from recommending particular persons or firms! A rich excuse for ignorance."
  When people applied to him for information as to where they could get good cider—as the Chairman of Committees lately did him the honour of doing—[laughter]—he sent them a printed list of addresses and let them make a choice for themselves, and if the Board knew where those trees were to be obtained 'they could have adopted some such plan as that. The only explanation was that when the Board made the statement they had no foundation whatever for it. On last Monday he received a letter from a Mr. Gray, an official in the British Consulate at Christiania—apparently a very intelligent and able young man. He hoped he would not injure the young man's chances of promotion by slating those facts in his favour. [Laughter]. This gentleman told him that a person of some importance at Christiania—in fact, a member of the body which in Norway corresponded with Parliament—was desirous of trying English cider. He had tried Norwegian cider, and did not like it.[Laughter.] But he was about to give a political dinner to his constituents—[laughter]—so that Members of Parliament had their trials there as well as lure—[laughter]—and wanted some samples of the English article; and if he liked the samples he was prepared to propose that the duty now imposed on the importation of eider into the country should be reduced. Suppose he had written to this gentleman and said that to recommend makers of English cider was contrary to his established practice, what would have happened? Why, there would be no prospect of the introduction of English cider into Norway. Us, however, gave the gentleman the name, of a firm, and the samples
  1582
  he required were despatched to him. He had recently also had a request from a gentleman in Denmark to send him English cider, with a view to its introduction into that country. If these people had not happened to know of his humble existence they would naturally have applied to the Board of Agriculture, and if they had done so the Board, after waiting a month, would have replied that the practice of the Department would not allow them to give any such information. In that way the opportunity for the opening up of what might be a considerable trade would have been lost by the action of a Government Department. In America they acted in a very different manner, and in Canada also. He had suggested that the Board of Agriculture should establish experimental farms in tins country. In the United States there were 50 experimental farms, and there were some in Canada also. To show the practical use of these farms he cited the case of the State of Iowa, where it was found that the winters were so inclement that the apple trees were often destroyed. The Government thereupon sent a director of agriculture, accompanied by a Canadian horticulturist, to Russia, where in one of the coldest provinces, the Province of kasan, they found not only varieties of apple, pear, and plum trees which could be cultivated with profit in the cold climate of Iowa, but also forest trees which would give these fruit trees the necessary shelter. That was the proper sort of Board of Agriculture—["Hear, hear!"]—and that was what the people here wanted. Experiments necessarily implied failure, and the ordinary farmer could not afford to run the risk of failure. The Government, however, could afford to run tins risk, and there was no doubt that agriculturists in this country might greatly benefit by these farms All that the farmer had to do in the States, or in Canada, was to go or write to the experimental farms in order to find out what fruit trees he could plant with the best chance of success on his farm. Not only so, he could have at cost price whatever trees he wanted. The cost of these five experimental stations in Canada was £8,000 a year in a poor country, against England's miserable £7,000 or £8,000 a year. What he wanted the right hon. Gentleman to do was to follow

  1583
  the example of our Colonies, and ask the Treasury, not for £8,000, but for £80,000, a year.
  MR. MELLORobserved that the last speaker had given the Committee some very useful information with regard to apple growing and eider making. He had a small matter which he wished to bring before the President of the Board of Agriculture, and it was this—he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not issue some circulars to the farmers in the west of England, not to induce them to plant fresh trees but to take care of the apple trees which they had got. ["Hear, hear!"] Nothing was more depressing to his mind than to go through the west of England now and to see the careless way in which these trees were being treated. The Board of Agriculture had done nothing in the way of giving advice to the farmers and labourers as to the best known methods of preserving their trees. This was a small but a very important matter, and he hoped the President of the Board of Agriculture would turn his attention to it. In the west of England the farmers thought very highly of Mr. Walter Long, and his name had a power greater than that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Secretary to the Treasury, or anybody else. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman might also give his attention to the preservation of kestrels. These birds which were very useful indeed in the destruction of vermin were becoming very scarce, while complaints were arising from many quarters in the west of England as to the great increase of rats.
  MR. PARKER SMITHalso supported the suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. Radcliffe Cooke) and referred to experience in India. Reference had been made to the transit of animals from Ireland. The evidence which came before them went to show that animals suffered far more in crossing the Channel from Ireland than cattle which came from Canada. The Committee of which the hon. Member for Brixton was Chairman, paid special attention to the question of the transport of animals across the Channel. Reform was needed, and he hoped the responsible Minister could assure them that he had the matter under consideration.
  MR. DENIS KILBRIDEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture to say what had been done to promote agricultural and dairy education, for which provision was made in this Vote. More than one deputation had waited upon the right hon. Gentleman to ask him to introduce legislation which would put the law with respect to dairy-farming in a more satisfactory condition, because Irish dairy producers were seriously hampered by the present state of the law. Reference had been made in the course of the Debate to the serious loss incurred by farmers in the West of England by the depredations of rats. He had a valuable suggestion to make to the President of the Board of Agriculture. There was a little animal indigenous to Ireland—the Irish terrier—which was the best rat-killer in the world, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could do something to adjust the financial relations between Ireland and England—[laughter]—by spending some money in encouraging the breed of Irish terriers and sending the dogs to those parts of the West of England which were infested with rats. [Laughter.] If the right hon. Gentleman were willing to adopt that suggestion he could give the names of several breeders of the best rat-killers in the world. [Renewed laughter.] He approved of experimental farms, but he did not think that they ought to be confined to experiments in fruit-growing. They ought to cover every branch of the agricultural industry. One of the principal advantages that would arise from such a farm as that indicated by the hon. Member opposite would be that it would place at the disposal of farmers in different parts of the country the grasses that they should sow, having regard to the particular soil and climate of the district. The sum of £8,000 which they voted in this particular year was only a drop in the sea—it could do practically no good. He thought that £80,000, or even a much larger sum might be extremely well spent in improving the condition of agriculture. He thought everyone would admit that what agriculturists were suffering from was mainly ignorance. How was it that the dairy farmers of Denmark were beating out of the markets of London and other places the dairy farmers of Devon and Ireland—simply because the Danish Government spend a large amount of

  1585
  money every year on the agricultural expert education of their people, and in carrying out these experiments. To forward the agricultural interests of their people they had in thin country a Danish Commissioner, an officer of the Government, paid by the Government, whose business it was to safeguard the interests of Danish produce all over Great Britain, and to report periodically to his Government which were the best markets for any particular kind of produce. Here the Government had done practically nothing up to the present time to teach the British agriculturist how to farm his land. He knew a great deal had been done to safeguard the health of the flocks and herds in this country. He admitted that a good deal had been done in the direction of stamping out the plague of tuberculosis and pleuro-pneumonia, but with the exception of that one particular piece of good the Board of Agriculture had done nothing practically to benefit the agriculturists of Great Britain, and nothing at all to benefit the agriculturists of Ireland. He found that little or nothing had been done either by the Board of Trade or the Hoard of Agriculture to improve the conditions of the transit of cattle from Ireland into this country, although there was no subject more worthy the attention of either Department. If right hon. Gentlemen would go down to any of the ports of this country and go on board ocean-going steamers which brought Canadian and American cattle to this country, and steamers which carried cattle between Ireland and England, they could not fail to be struck by the difference of the accommodation provided in the two eases. The Irish cattle traffic would never be satisfactory until some Government Department insisted that cattle boats should be cattle boats, and passenger boats passengers boats. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *SIR C. DILKE, referring to the remarks of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Radcliffe Cooke), said he thought it was very doubtful whether it should he left to a private individual to foster an industry like the cider industry, which he believed had a large future before it. He had been requested by a large number of his constituents to mention to the President of the Board of Agriculture the bearing of the
  1586
  muzzling order on the working of sheep dogs. They hoped that it would be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to make some modification in the order in favour of sheep dogs, as it was found very difficult for these dogs to work properly now.
  MR. G. WHITELEYsaid that the complaint he always had to make against agriculturists was that instead of adopting the methods of other trades, instead of working out their own salvation, and themselves conducting the experiments necessary to develop their industry, they were always calling upon the Government to do something for them, and to spend money on their own particular industry. He did not think it was desirable that their demand for £80,000 should be agreed to at present. Last year the Government gave a sum of £2,000,000 to the agriculturists, and surely that should suffice for some little time. From rates to rats was an easy transition, and he was sorry to hear that rats were making such depredations in the West of England. He thought the best thing would be to issue an order that all rats should be muzzled. [A laugh] He thought that would meet the case.
  *MR. WALTER LONGsaid that the hon. Member for Northamptonshire had asked whether the Board of Agriculture were prepared to take any action of their own in anticipation of the Report of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis. The Report would be, he believed, in their hands before long, and, pending that Report, he was certainly not prepared to make any recommendations as to Government interference in reference to this question. The hon. Member told the Committee it was a very serious question, and if it were so serious, it would certainly be a very hazardous thing for any Government Department to take stops affecting the agricultural community, unless they had behind them the recommendations of the Commission and the evidence upon which those recommendations were based. The suggestion of the hon. Member was that they should act somewhat in the same way as the Local Government Board acted in the supply of lymph—that they should supply tuberculine for voluntary use by agriculturists. That was a suggestion which he might entertain if it were shown to him that at present

  1587
  there was any practical difficulty in the way of agriculturists, if they wished to make experiments, obtaining the necessary means. But he saw no evidence of any such practical difficulty. For instance, the work done by the hon. Member for Midlothian without Government assistance was of the greatest possible value to his brother agriculturists, and reflected the greatest credit upon him. Pending the Report of the Royal Commission, he was not prepared to suggest that any definite steps should be taken by his Department. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought the majority of the recommendations that had been made to him had been in connection with experimental farms. No doubt there was a great deal to be said for experimental farms, but he was quite sure there was something to be said against them. He did not envy the lot of a President of the Board of Agriculture, who was responsible for them. He did not know what his lot might be in the various assemblies to which his hon. Friend behind him had referred, whether in the Colonies or in foreign countries. But he did not envy the lot of a President of the Hoard of Agriculture in that House who was responsible for the conduct of eight or ten experimental farms in different parts of the country. He knew that it was no easy matter to satisfy British agriculturists on any particular question; but he was quite certain of this, that if the Government conducted experimental farms with a view to showing farmers how to farm their laud, the practical result would be that every agriculturist in the House or out of it would tell them that "whatever they did know, they did not know how to cultivate land"—[laughter] —and nothing but disastrous results would be attained. He confessed that he listened with regret to the ready way in which hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House and in all parts of the country were found to talk about British agriculture as if it stood at the bottom of the list with regard to the agricultural products of the world. To listen to some of them, one would think that British agriculturists were the most ignorant and incompetent in the world. Whereas he did not think there were any producers in the world with whom the British agriculturists could not compete, both in the
  1588
  quantity and in the quality of his produce—| "hear, hear!"]—and be believed that he was able to put on the market an article superior to that produced by any country in the world. How was this excellence obtained? And that it had been attained he had never heard gainsaid, Had it been by Government assistance? Had these experimental farms in other countries enabled those nations to produce a better article than we produce in England? He cared not whether it was their brethren in Canada, or the agriculturists of foreign countries. Take any kind of produce—potatoes, cheese, butter, crops of all kinds—take them either in quality, size, or general character —the British agriculturist had always more than held his own. That had been due, not to Government experiments or Government interference, but it was the result entirely of his own energy and initiative, and the risking of his own capital.[Cheers] His hon. Friend behind him was anxious that they should undertake experiments in growing cider apples. He understood the suggestion was that they should set up experimental farms in order that upon them there should be grown a particular kind of apple, so that this kind of fruit tree might be supplied to those who applied for them. He was sorry that in the correspondence which had taken place on this subject, either the hon. Member or his Friends should have had to complain of any delay on the part of the Board of Agriculture in replying to their letters. But he was bound to say that this was the first time he had ever heard it laid down in that House that it was the primary duty or in any sense the duty of a Government Department to supply the public with the names of shops where they could get an article of the best character. Further than that, he could not conceive anything more undesirable or more to be avoided than that a Government Department should identify themselves with the advertisements of particular wares or manufactures, or of shops where these could be bought. ["Hear, hear!"] His hon. Friend dwelt on the difficulties in the way of getting these particular fruits. Yet he told them that in Kent a certain farmer had revived this expired industry with most successful results. Surely they could do in

  1589
  Hereford what had been dune in Kent. He could not believe that the eider industry, if it was not a prosperous one already, was going to be carried on in a success if it could not be developed without a Government Department setting up fruit gardens. A dozen or more other industries were constantly brought under this notice as being suitable subjects for experiments on special farms. But there was no other country in the world that, varied so much in respect of soil and climate as England did, and what might be suitable for production on one experimental farm would be unsuitable in another. Therefore, to meet all the suggestions that were made from 20 to 30 experimental farms would be required. Complaint had been made that only £8,000 a year was spent here by the Government on agricultural education, as compared with £100,000 spent in Canada; but it should be borne in mind that here it had been resolved to work in the first place not through the Government but through private enterprise, which was only to be supplemented by the help and action of local authorities in the shape of County Councils. When hon. Members said that nothing had been done by that House or the Government to assist agriculture by finding money for experiments and for improvements, they forgot or ignored what the House had done. Not long ago £160,000 a year was voted for technical and agricultural education, and that money was expended by the County Councils. Let hon. Members ascertain whether the duties entrusted to the County Councils were properly performed; and if they were not, let hon. Members take steps with a view to making the County Councils spend the money in a inure useful way. It could not be said with truth that the Government had not provided money for these purposes. He was not a believer in the system of experimental farms carried on by the Government, but he did believe in experimental farms attached to agricultural colleges and similar institutions, and he would gladly do what he could to assist educational centres, county councils, or great agricultural colleges to obtain land in order that practical instruction in agriculture might be given to students. He agreed that, it was unfortunate to find how greatly orchards had been neglected in many parts of the
  1590
  country, and he would consider the advisability of issuing a circular or leaflet on the subject. He deplored the destruction of kestrels and owls. Their annihilation was unsportsmanlike and injurious to the farmers' interests, because they destroyed many agricultural pests. A leaflet had already been issued on this subject by the Board of Agriculture, but he would see whether anything more could be done. In regard to the transit of cattle from Ireland, he was glad to say that there had been a distinct improvement. Last year he secured the assistance of four additional inspectors, who had been hard at work ever since their appointment. There was room for further improvement, but he was not at all sure that the damage entirely was done in the cross-channel stage of the journey. He and the Chief Secretary for Ireland were at the present, moment engaged in an inquiry into this branch of the question, and with the aid of the officials concerned they hoped to be able to obtain information which would enable them to see if it were not possible to effect such changes in the transit of cattle as to secure that they were carried humanely, and also delivered in a condition that would insure their commanding the best prices. The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean had mentioned certain matters of detail in connection with the muzzling of sheep dogs. The mailer should have his attention, and he hoped soon to be able to communicate with the right hon. Gentleman. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. CHANNINGremarked that the leaflets which had been issued by the Board of Agriculture had proved of great value to agriculturists. He should like to ask the President of the Board if he could see his way to include among them a translation of the very interesting and suggestive report of Professor Bang, the great Danish expert in tuberculosis. When he was in America he found that this work had been issued through several States of the Union, and that it gave in a careful and concise form the results of experiments which were of great service to agriculturists.
  *MR. LONGsaid he would be glad to consider the suggestion.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  WORKMEN (COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS [EXPENSES].
  Resolution reported—
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any expenses of and relating to arbitration which may become payable under any Act of the present Session to amend the law with respect to compensation to workmen for accidental injuries suffered in the course of their employment, and of any compensation that may become payable in respect of accidents to workmen employed by or under the Crown in pursuance of such Act."
  Resolution agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Committee deferred till Monday next.
LAND TENURE BILL.
Second Residing deferred till Thursday 1st July.
TENANT RIGHT IN TOWNS (IRELAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday 24th June.
LAND LAW (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 25th June.
LONDON WATER COMPANIES AMALGAMATION BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
BOARDS OF GUARDIANS AND LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Adjourned Debate en Amendment to Second Reading [7th April] further adjourned till Thursday 1st July.
SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday 24th June.
COUNTY COUNCILS (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday 1st July.
VERMINOUS PERSONS BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to he considered upon Monday next.
SALE OF DISTRESS AMENDMENT BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
TRAWLERS' LICENSING BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (IRELAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday 24th June.
POOR LAW FRANCHISE, (IRELAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday 24th June.
LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS BILL.
Read a Second time, and committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, Etc.
PARISH REGISTERS BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday 1st July.
COUNTY GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday 1st July.

WHITSUNTIDE HOLIDAYS.
On the Motion "That the House do I now adjourn,"
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid: At Question time I threw out a suggestion in regard to the holidays and the possible necessity or desirability of suspending the Twelve o'clock Rule in order that our holidays might be extended to June 17th instead of only to the 14th. I have made such inquiries as I can in different quarters, and I find that on the one hand there is a strong objection to suspending the Twelve o'clock Rule, and that, on the other hand, there is a general desire to get through the work of the Committee stage of the Workmen (Compensation for Accidents) Bill as soon as possible. Under these circumstances I do not propose to take any steps on Monday next. ["Hear, hear!"]
Adjourned at Five Minutes after Twelve o'Clock till Monday next.