Commons Sitting of 9 August 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKERtook the Chair at Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  CARDIFF RAILWAY BILL.
  (In pursuance of the Order of the House of 8th August) Lords' Amendments considered, considered and agreed to.
PETITIONS.
  CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Against, from Dysart and Kirkcaldy; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES).
  Against State Regulation, from Wood Green and Woolwich; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (EXTENSION TO WOMEN) BILL.
  From Croydon, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SCIENCE AND ART GRANTS.
  From Shrewsbury, for Alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, Etc.
  RATES (NON-PAYMENT) (SCOTLAND).
  Return [presented 8th August] to be printed.[No. 376.]
  LOCAL AUTHORITY (SCOTLAND) (CONDITIONS OF CONTRACTS).
  Return [presented 8th August] to be printed.[No. 377.]
  ARMY.
  Copy presented of Memorandum dated 28th April, 1898, issued by the Commander-in-Chief [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAYS (SHUNTING ACCIDENTS).
  Return presented relative thereto [ordered 28th June; Mr. Maddison]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 378.]
  POLICE (COUNTIES AND BOROUGHS).
  Copy presented of Reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary for the year ending 29th September, 1897 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.[No. 379.]
  INLAND REVENUE.
  Copy presented of Forty-first Report of the Commissioners (for the year ended 31st March, 1898) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CUSTOMS.
  Copy presented of Forty-second Report of the Commissioners (for the year ended 31stMarch, 1898) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE.
  Copy presented of Forty-fourth Report of the Postmaster General [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  IRISH DAY MAILS (COMMITTEE).
  Copy presented of Report of Committee appointed by the Treasury to inquire into the acceleration of the Irish Day Mails; with Minutes of Evidence [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EVENING CONTINUATION SCHOOLS.
  Return presented relative thereto [ordered 23rd June; Mr. Hobhouse]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.[No. 380.]
  EDUCATION (PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS).
  Return presented relative thereto [ordered 4th August; Colonel Lockwood]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 381.]
  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES) (No. 2, 1898).
  Copy presented of a General Order issued by the Commander-in-Chief in India, on 14th July, 1897, regarding the means of checking Venereal Diseases among the British Troops in India [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL TAXATION (IRELAND) RETURNS
  Copy presented of Returns for the year 1897 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY (PRIZE FIRING).
  Return presented relative thereto [ordered 5th August Sir John Colomb]; to lie upon the Table.
PUBLIC BILLS.
  POST OFFICE (LOCAL AUTHORITY GUARANTEE) BILL.
  Lords' Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
  Lords' Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]
  NONCONFORMIST MARRIAGES (ATTENDANCE OF REGISTRARS) BILL.
  Lords' Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to; with a Consequential Amendment to the Bill.
  COMPANIES BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will he pleased to communicate to this House a Copy of the Report from the Select Committee appointed by their Lordships on the Companies Bill, with the Proceedings of the Committee, Minutes of Evidence, Etc.—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  COPYRIGHT BILL AND COPYRIGHT (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to communicate to this House a Copy of the Report from the Select Committee appointed by their Lordships on the Copyright Bill and the Copyright (Amendment) Bill [H.L.], with the Proceedings of the Committee, Minutes of Evidence, Etc.—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  Ordered, That the Standing Orders, as amended, be printed.—(Mr. James William Lowther.)[No.382.]
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—
  METROPOLITAN COMMON POOR FUND BILL,
    MERCHANT SHIPPING (MERCANTILE MARINE FUND) BILL,

      TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL,
      without Amendment.
      Amendments to Amendments to—

  LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL,
  without Amendment.
  That they do not insist on their Amendment to Vaccination Bill to which this House has disagreed.

  TELEPHONES.
  Report from the Select Committee brought up and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.[No. 383.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  QUESTIONS.

    SHOOTING IN THE ARMY.
    COLONEL SIR H. VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if the attention of Lord Lansdowne has been drawn to the recent observations of Field Marshal Lord Roberts, Commander-in-Chief in Ireland, as to the paramount necessity of greater efforts being made to improve the shooting of the Army, and to his declaration that, under the conditions of modern warfare, mere drill except to enable the modern rifle to be used with the best advantage is little more than playing at soldiers, the Government will make serious endeavour to acquire, with the pecuniary help of Parliament, before the increase of population and buildings make it impossible, suitable ranges throughout the country?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE OF WAR (Mr. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,: Every effort is being made to acquire new ranges and to improve others in various central positions. Two ranges have already been established on the land recently acquired on Salisbury Plain, and accommodation will be available there after this year for camping and for rifle practice for any Volunteer corps who may desire to use the ground, as well as for the Regular Army.

    INDIAN TARIFFS.
    COLONEL SIR H. VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will commend to the consideration of the Indian Government the example set on 1st August, 1898, by the Dominion of Canada in the admission of imports from the United Kingdoms and India, or

    635
    containing 25 per cent, of British labour, at a reduction of one-fourth the duty leviable upon foreign goods?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,: In view of the circumstances under which the import duties now in force in India were imposed, and of the relatively small proportion which they bear to the value of the articles imported, I am not prepared to recommend the reduction of them suggested by the honourable Member.

    WORKMEN'S TRAINS.
    MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the hardship and inconvenience which a large number of men engaged in the printing trade have to suffer through the want of an early morning train from Farringdon Street Station similar to those now being run by other railways in that district; and will the Board of Trade exercise the powers conferred upon them by the 1883 Act so as to cause the railway company to provide the necessary train accommodation?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. H. LONG,for Mr. RITCHIE): Yes, Sir; the attention of the Board of Trade has been directed to this case, and they have communicated with the company, referring to the provisions of the Cheap Trains Act, and intimating their intention to order an inquiry.
    MARJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the serious overcrowding of trains on the London, Tilbury, and Southend line; and whether he will use his influence with this company to induce them to run additional services to prevent the great inconvenience to the public which is now normal?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (for Mr. RITCHIE): Yes, Sir; the Board of Trade have from
    636
    time to time communicated with the company on this subject, and they would be glad to use their influence with the company to induce them to run additional trains. In answer to an appeal of this description, however, the company have already replied that their
    "running powers into Fenchurch Street Station are limited, and that the Great Eastern Railway Company express their inability to grant additional accommodation."
    The managing director adds—
    "It is, therefore, impossible for us to run more or longer trains than we are doing at the present time, and until the construction of the Whitechapel and Bow line is carried out, I do not see much prospect of an increased train service to London in connection with the Tilbury line."

    DEPTFORD VICTUALLING YARD.
    MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to discharge a number of the hired labourers at present employed at Deptford Victualling Yard?
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,: During the last few months some additional labourers have been entered at Deptford Yard for temporary service, in connection with the transfer of the naval store depot to the West India Docks. When this work is finished, their engagement will cease. No other discharges are at present contemplated.
    MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, during the present year, the Admiralty have discontinued the manufacture of mustard, pepper, and chocolate at Deptford Victualling Yard; whether large orders for each of these articles have been given to private contractors; whether the mustard and chocolate already delivered by the contractors has been found to be inferior in quality to that previously manufactured at Deptford Victualling Yard; and whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to reconsider the question of manufacturing these articles at Deptford Victualling Yard?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,: The manufacture of mustard and pepper was discontinued last year. Chocolate is still manufactured, although orders have been placed and considerable quantities obtained from the private trade. The mustard and; chocolate delivered by contractors have not been found inferior to the Deptford production. There is no intention of re-establishing the manufacture of mustard and pepper.

    ORDNANCE SURVEY OFFICE, SOUTHAMPTON.
    MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that workmen employed on skilled work in the copper plate store at the Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton, receive lower wages than workmen employed on similar work in the other departments of the survey at Southampton; and whether he will favourably consider the claims of these men to fee paid the same wages as in the other departments?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: The workmen referred to are employed on duty inferior in character to that of those engaged in other branches, and it is reasonable, therefore, that they should be paid at a lower rate. They are, however, eligible for promotion when qualified, and as vacancies occur. No request for a higher rating has been made by the men themselves, and I have nothing before me which would suggest that any alteration is called for.

    COLCHESTER GRAMMAR SCHOOL.
    MR. CAEVELL WILLIAMS:: I beg to ask the honourable Member for Thirsk, as a Charity Commissioner, whether the scheme for the management of the Colchester Grammar School, just placed in the hands of Members, is the same scheme as that which was condemned by the town council of Colchester early in the present year; and whether the final sanction of the Charity Commissioners will be withheld until
    638
    Parliament has had an opportunity of considering the scheme next Session?
    THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,: The scheme is the same as that respecting which the town council of Colchester passed, on 6th January, 1897, a resolution of disapproval. But on 1st August, 1894, the council had resolved that they assented to the scheme subject to a certain alteration, which alteration was made by the Commissioners, and is embodied in the scheme now before Parliament. The approval of a scheme under the Endowed Schools Acts, does not rest with the Charity Commissioners, but with Her Majesty the Queen; but before that approval is given the scheme will have to lie upon the Table for two months next Session.

    KILLING OF PATRICK CONNOR.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the language used by a magistrate, Mr. James E. Butler, on the 2nd July last, in Waterville Courthouse, on the occasion of the trial of John and Jeremiah Riordan, two water bailiffs, for the killing of Patrick Connor, when he stated that he would go bail for these men with great pleasure; that he (Connor) deserved what he got; and that what he was doing was very different from poaching; and whether he will direct the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the conduct of Mr. Butler?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,: I have caused inquiries to be made into the incident referred to, and have been unable to ascertain whether Mr. Butler made use of the language attributed to him or not. I may point out, however, that Mr. Butler did not act as a magistrate in the case, and that anything he may have said was said in the course of the evidence he gave as a witness to character of the accused. Under these circumstances it does not appear to be a case calling for the Lord Chancellor's intervention.

    MODEL SCHOOL, CORK.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that a vacancy has been created in the head-mastership of the Model School, Cork; and whether, in view of the inquiry into the system of model schools now in progress, he will communicate with the National Education Board, pointing out the inadvisability of creating new vested interests by further appointments before the Committee have come to some conclusion on the subject?
    MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. GERALD BALFOUR): I have communicated this Question to the Commissioners of National Education, who state that a vacancy will be created in the head-mastership of the Cork Model School on 7th, September, and that it would be inadvisable to fail to provide for the education of the pupils of that school by delaying unduly the appointment of a head-master.

    VICTOR DE L'HERAULT'S ESTATE.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will furnish a full and detailed statement of all investments, receipts, and payments in connection with the estate of Victor de l'Herault, late of Shannon Lodge, Carrickon-Shannon, from 1879 to the present date, as is required by the Act of 39 and 40 Victoria?
    MR. ATKINSON: My right honourable Friend has asked me to reply to this Question. To enable me to do so, and to make the necessary inquiries, I will ask the honourable Member to repeat the Question on Thursday next.

    GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY EMPLOYEES.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the case of William Crowcroft, an examiner on the Great Northern Railway, who, having sent a memorial to the
    640
    directors on behalf of certain sections of his fellow workers in the months of January and February of this year, was dismissed by the company in the months of April on the pretext that he had neglected his duties, the alleged neglect being that he did not give notice before 8.45 a.m. that he was unfit to go to work owing to sudden illness; whether he is aware that Crowcroft had been in the company's service 16 years, without any previous fault being found with him; and whether he will undertake to inquire into this matter in accordance with the understanding that railway men who bring forward any grievance of their fellow workmen in a proper manner shall be protected against harsh treatment?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (for Mr. RITCHIE): The Board of Trade are not aware of any such "understanding" on their part as that referred to in the concluding paragraph of the honourable Member's Question. The Department has no power of interference as regards the hiring or dismissal of railway servants, nor can they as a rule undertake to communicate with the companies in regard thereto. On a recent occasion they communicated with certain companies with reference to a specific complaint that some men had been dismissed for taking a course which had been recommended by the Board of Trade. Crowcroft—referred to in the honourable Member's Question—was one of the men involved in the complaint, and the Board are in possession of the company's reply. The general manager says—
    "The case was not in any sense a matter of punishment. Crowcroft, being physically incapable of performing the duties of examiner, was offered other employment, which he declined to accept. Under these circumstances, I regret I was unable to do anything further for him."

    ROMAN COOTHILL POOR RATE.
    MR. DILLON: On behalf of the honourable Member for South Monaghan I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Local Government Board auditor, who recently visited Roman Coothill Workhouse, stated in

    641
    his report that too much poor rate was outstanding; that rate collector M'Kay made no lodgment from 19th March until 9th July and kept the money of the guardians meantime in his hands; and that rate collector M'Kay tore out the receipts from his books and presented the blocks for inspection to the clerk of the union; and whether he will direct a sworn inquiry into the conduct of M'Kay?
    MR. ATKINSON: The facts are as stated in the first paragraph. The Local Government Board have requested the guardians to call upon collector M'Kay to furnish a written explanation respecting the irregularities on his part to which the auditor has drawn attention, and on receipt of his explanation the Board will determine what action should be taken by them in reference to this matter.

    WRECK INQUIRIES AT CARDIFF.
    MR. BRYN ROBERTS: On behalf of the honourable Member for Merthyr Tydfil I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the intention of the Board of Trade to remove the wreck inquiries relating to Cardiff-owned vessels to Newport (Mon.); and, if so, what are the reasons, and why the Cardiff Shipowners' Association has not been made acquainted with the change?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (for Mr. RITCHIE): The Board of Trade have not come to any decision to remove the whole of the wreck inquiries relating to Cardiff-owned vessels to Newport. In the case of one Cardiff-owned vessel, they, how ever, recently directed the inquiry to be held at Newport in the following circumstances: they have for some time had their attention drawn to the exceptional number of days occupied in hearing inquiries at Cardiff, and to the uncertainty of the sittings, owing to the large demands necessarily made upon the time of the stipendiary magistrate in the performance of his ordinary magisterial duties—for example, in a recent case, an inquiry occupying only 43 hours extended over 13days,during the whole
    642
    of which time the assessors and sever it of the witnesses were detained at considerable daily cost, while the shipowners, professional men, and others connected with the case were put to great inconvenience. Another inquiry occupying only 12 hours extended over six days. It being contrary to the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act to hold inquiries before the ordinary justices in any place where the stipendiary magistrate is a member of the Local Marine Board, as at Cardiff, the Board of Trade deemed it their duty to hold the recent inquiry, by way of experiment, at Newport. The magistrates sat for five hours, and concluded the inquiry in one day, judgment being delivered on the following morning. The Board of Trade will, of course, be happy to consider any representations which may be made to them on the subject by or on behalf of the Cardiff shipowners.

    SERGEANT SULLIVAN'S SURETIES.
    MR. DILLON: On behalf of the honourable Member for West Mayo I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that County Inspector Milling, of Westport, county Mayo, and District Inspector Dalton, of Newport, county Mayo, are the bails for Sergeant Sullivan, of Newport, who awaits his trial on a criminal charge; and whether officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary are permitted by the rules of the force to go bail for policemen against whom criminal charges have been made?
    MR. ATKINSON: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The constabulary regulations do not prohibit officers from going bail for members of the force charged with criminal offences.

    TRUCK ACT.
    MR. MADDISON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether only inspectors of factories or mines are empowered under the Truck Act, 1896, to

    643
    demand in writing the contract, or a true copy thereof, made by an employer with the employees respecting fines, or to examine the register of fines such measure stipulates shall be kept open for inspection; and, if only such inspectors are competent to perform these duties, whether he is aware that on railways these inspectors have no jurisdiction, the effective operation of the Act being thus rendered impossible?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,: It is quite true that the only inspectors who have jurisdiction under the Act are the inspectors of factories and mines, and that the working of railways does not fall within their province. I cannot agree, however, that the effective operation of the Act is thus rendered impossible, as the Act provides for the workman himself obtaining, on demand a copy of the contract or of the notice containing its terms; and in regard to the register, though there is no inspector whose duty it is to examine it in the case of railways, it would, in the event of a prosecution, be available for production in court as evidence.
    MR. MADDISON: Does not the right honourable Gentleman think that the deterrent value of the register of fines is in such cases——
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is a matter of opinion.

    TEMPORARY CIVIL ASSISTANTS.
    SIR F. EVANS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that there has been no opportunity this Session of discussing the Ordnance Survey Vote, he could now state if the Government are prepared to remedy the serious grievances of the temporary civil assistants by granting them superannuation allowances, and so admitting the permanent nature of their employment?
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,: I have received representations
    644
    on this subject from the temporary civil assistants, and have given them careful consideration. There are some portions of the business of the survey now in progress which will be completed within a limited time. I do not think, therefore, that the Government would be justified in doing anything to give an appearance of permanence to employment which is not in fact likely to be permanent.
    MR. DILLON: Will the right honourable Gentleman endeavour to get the Vote brought on at an early period next Session, as I think I am in a position to prove that the statement is quite unfounded?
    [No Reply.]

    MILITARY PUNISHMENTS.
    MR. MENDL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a sentence of five years' penal servitude passed at a general court-martial held at Shorncliffe on private Charles Warren, Highland Light Infantry, for striking an officer in the face with his cap, such sentence to be followed at its expiration by the discharge of the prisoner from the service with ignominy; whether he will state the circumstances under which the offence with which the prisoner was charged was committed; and whether there were any, and what, special reasons for inflicting this punishment?
    MR. BRODRICK: Private Warren having been convicted of desertion, was undergoing a sentence of imprisonment with hard labour, and when the orderly officer on duty visited the guard-room cells, where Private Warren was confined, the man stated that he had a complaint to make. Warren said he had made a previous complaint, but could get no satisfaction, and protested against his punishment. The orderly officer having ascertained that Warren was a court-martial prisoner, told him that his complaint was frivolous, and on the soldier "threatening he would smash everything he could lay his hands on, "advised him against such

    645
    folly. Private Warren then struck the officer in the face with the cap which he was holding in his hand. He pleaded guilty to the charge, was convicted, and Her Majesty, on the advice of the Judge Advocate General, confirmed the proceedings. The prisoner has a bad record, having within the last 20 months been twice convicted of felony and once of being "on premises with unlawful intent."

    BARRACK ACCOMMODATION IN SOTLAND.
    MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that the total expenditure on the provision of barrack accommodation, excluding maintenance, during the five years 1892–7 was in England £2,295,000, Scotland £35,000, Ireland £581,000, he could state what was the total expenditure respectively in the three countries during the preceding five years 1887–92; also, seeing that the annual average expenditure for that purpose has been in England £460,000, in Ireland £116,000, in Scotland £7,000, he would state what sum is allowed this year to the General Officer commanding North British District for expenditure in Scotland?
    MR. BRODRICK: The amount allotted for expenditure this year in Scotland on barrack accommodation is £21,000. It will take some little time to check the figures given in the Question for the years 1892–7, and to collect the figures for 1887–92.

    GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.
    MR. LEWIS:: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether workmen in the employ of the Government will have a choice between the proposed alternative Government scheme to the Workmen's Compensation Act and the provisions of the Act itself; whether any difference will be made in regard to conditions of employment or otherwise between workmen who accept the alternative scheme and those who
    646
    prefer not to contract out of the Act, or whether their choice will be perfectly free; and whether the terms of the alternative Government scheme will be laid upon the Table of the House?
    MR. HANBURY: The Registrar of Friendly Societies is at present ascertaining the views of Government workmen upon the proposed alternative scheme. If the result of his inquiry enables him to certify the scheme, its adoption will be a matter of contract between the Government and the workmen under section 3 of the Act. The answer to the second paragraph is in the negative. When the scheme is finally approved it will be laid before the House.
    MR. LEWIS: Have the workmen a perfectly free choice between the provisions of the scheme and those of the Act?
    MR. HANBURY: I have not seen the Question before this. The reply supplied me is that the answer to the second paragraph is in the negative; as the paragraph contains two Questions, I cannot say which it refers to.

    CHINA.
    MR. ASCROFT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any reply has been received from the Chinese Government in answer to the representation made by Her Majesty's Government through Sir Claude MacDonald; and whether there is any objection to the same being placed upon the Table of this House before the adjournment of Parliament?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. N. CURZON,: Sir Claude MacDonald reported by telegraph on 25th July that the Chinese Government had expressed their gratitude to Her Majesty's Government for the promise of support which had been given to them, and added that no threat of aggression had been made. As I have given the contents of the telegram in question, there would be no object in laying it separately upon the Table.

    COMMERCIAL ATTACHE FOR ROUMANIA.
    MR. ASCROFT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, considering the great impetus given to British trade by the recent appointment of a Commercial Attaché for Bulgaria, he will consider the advisability of making a similar appointment for Roumania; whether hr is aware that, whilst a port tax of one-half per cent, is charged on all goods shipped to Bucharest from this country, all goods despatched by train from Italy, Germany, or Switzerland are free from such tax; and whether he is aware that such tax is no longer used for the purpose for which it was imposed; and, if not, will he make inquiries with a view to representations being made to the Roumanian Government in order that same may be removed?
    MR. CURZON: A special Commercial Attaché has not been appointed for Bulgaria; but Bulgaria has been included in the sphere of the Commercial Attaché recently appointed to Constantinople. Roumania is similarly included in the sphere of the Commercial Attaché for Austria; and this post, which has recently been vacated by Sir E. Law, will before long be filled by another appointment. The half per cent, tax mentioned in the second paragraph is not imposed solely on British sea-borne goods as would appear to be suggested in the Question; but is equally paid on all goods imported by the Danube, much of which are of Austrian or German origin. I cannot say to what purposes this tax is now being applied. But an influential Roumanian Commission is now sitting to inquire into the matter, and it has for some time received the close attention of Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Bucharest.

    NIU-CHWANG RAILWAY.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the final ratification by the Chinese Government of an advance of British money for the projected railway to Niu-chwang has been given; if not,
    648
    whether, consistently with the public interest, he can state what are the objections to its being ratified?
    MR. CURZON: I am unable to make any statement on this subject, which is still under discussion.
    MR. LAMBERT: This matter has been in hand two months. Will he be able to make a statement before Parliament prorogues?
    MR. CURZON: No, Sir; I think it is unlikely, although I shall be glad to do so if possible.

    BRITISH RED CROSS SOCIETY AND THE SOUDAN CAMPAIGN.
    MR. E. MORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will advise His Highness the Khedive to grant permission to the British Red Cross Society and to members of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem to accompany the Khartoum Expeditionary Force at their own expense for the purpose of rendering medical aid to the wounded without distinction of race, colour, or creed?
    MR. CURZON: The military authorities in Egypt have gladly accepted the assistance of the Red Cross Society for work between Cairo and Assouan, The difficulties of transport, any further call on which would diminish the numbers of the fighting force, make it impossible in the opinion of the authorities to accept any offers of assistance above Assouan.

    CONVERSION OF 1855 LOAN.
    MR. E. MORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will secure, with the concurrence of the French Government, an adequate sum from the savings which will accrue through the conversion of the Ottoman Guaranteed Loan of 1855, for the purpose of placing the administration of Crete upon a sound financial basis under commissioners appointed by the Powers?
    MR. CURZON: The question of the conversion of the Ottoman Guaranteed Loan of 1855 has not yet reached a stage at which I can make any statement in regard to it, but I do not at present see how any savings out of the so-called Cyprus Tribute could properly be applied to Crete.

    ROYAL ARTILLERY STAFF CLERKS.
    MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War when regulations for the appointment and promotion of staff clerks of the Royal Artillery (in substitution of those suspended in 1895, which still appear in italics in 745 I. and 715 II.) will be promulgated?
    MR. BRODRICK: The regulations are still under consideration in connection with the general question of staff clerks and warrant officers.

    RABIES.
    MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the cases of rabies among dogs have been very rare in the counties of Lancashire and Essex during this year, and will he state the number of cases that have occurred in each county since December, 1897; whether he will issue a Return during the Recess of all the cases of rabies in England since December, 1897; and, in view of the strong feeling existing against the Muzzling Order, if he will cause the said Order to be revoked in Lancashire and Essex?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: Two cases of rabies have occurred in Lancashire during the current year. No case has occurred in Essex. Complete returns of all cases occurring in Great Britain are published weekly, and I scarcely think, therefore, that any special return is now called for. The position in regard to the disease has undoubtedly improved, but it would be premature for me to withdraw the Muzzling Orders which are still in force in portions of the two counties named, for the reasons which I have recently explained.

    WESTPORT UNION.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the honourable Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the total area, total valuation, and total population of the Westport Union, County Mayo; how many electoral divisions are in that union with the valuation, number of houses in, and populaton of, each electoral division in the said union; whether he can state the amount of Government money spent in the union on the relief of distress this year, and how much will the guardians be asked to contribute to the relief of distress; and whether he can state by what amount does the outdoor relief for the six months ending June, 1898, exceed the amount of outdoor relief for the six months ended June, 1897?
    MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. GERALD BALFOUR): It would be impossible to give all the information asked for by the honourable Member within the limits of an answer to a Question. But I will endeavour to procure as much of the information as can readily be given, and will communicate it to him when received.

    SMALL HOLDINGS IN IRELAND.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the honourable Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government will consider the advisability of appointing a Commission to inquire into the area of land available for settlement by the small tenants requiring land in the distressed districts of the South and West of Ireland?
    MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. GERALD BALFOUR): The inquiry suggested by the honourable Member is of a vague and undefined character. All the information that can be obtained on the subject is in the possession of the Congested Districts Board. The Government will not, therefore, make any inquiry of the nature mentioned.

    CLYDE DEFENCES COMMISSION.
    MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the establishment of a naval arsenal by Russia on the Kola River, and of the railway, which is in construction by that country to the ice-free harbour of Port Victoria, with the opening of a harbour at Ehahrina, whereby the present conditions in the northern seas will be seriously affected, the Government, having regard to the strategic, naval, and commercial advantages to be derived, will consider the advisability of adding as an instruction to the Commission about to be appointed to inquire into the Clyde defences to report at the same time on the question of enlarging the existing canal between the Clyde and the Firth of Forth into a sea canal similar to the one recently opened at Kiel?
    MR. BRODRICK: This Question should be addressed to the First Lord of the Treasury.

    SCIENCE AND ART INSTRUCTION IN WALES.
    MR. JONES: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Central Education Board of Wales is a body which, with the concurrence of the county governing bodies, could be recognised under clause 7 of the directory as responsible for science and art instruction, in Wales?
    THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,: The Central Education Board for Wales would, as the intermediate education authority, be recognised by the Department under the express provisions of clause7.

    PLYMOUTH BREAKWATER.
    MR. LODER: On behalf of the honourable Member for the Totnes Division of Devon I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has come to a decision with regard to the claims of those employed for many years Upon the permanent repair staff on the
    652
    Plymouth Breakwater to a pension on superannuation?
    MR. A. CHAMBERLAIN: The case of these men has been considered in great detail by the Department charged with the administration of the Superannuation Acts. It has been decided that the men are not entitled to pensions-under those Acts, and they were informed of this decision in January last. The gratuities to which they were entitled on discharge have already been paid to them.

    NORTHERN LIGHTS COMMISSIONERS.
    MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will consider the advisability of placing the Northern. Lights Commissioners and Scottish Meteorological Society and other bodies similarly situated in Scotland on a satisfactory footing by supplying them with the necessary funds by direct vote of the Imperial Parliament?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I would remind the honourable Member that the Northern Lights Commissioners are the lighthouse authorities for Scotland, and that their financial relations with the Board of Trade are not verbally different from those of the Trinity House, Which is the lighthouse authority for England. The Scotch Meteorological Society, like the English Meteorological Society, obtains no direct aid from the State. The Meteorological Council, which has the spending of the Government grant, is representative of both countries, and I have no reason to think that the council is at all disposed to neglect the interests of Scotland.
    MR. PIRIE: May I ask if it is not the case that the funds for the Northern Lights Commissioners are given through the Trinity House, an English body?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am not sure how that is, but in any case the financial relations of the two countries are substantially the same. The financial relations between Trinity House and the Treasury are the same as those between the Northern Lights Commissioners and the Treasury.

    CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT.
    MR. H. D. GREENE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state what will be the earliest period after receiving the Royal Assent at which official printed copies of the Criminal Evidence Act can be obtained by magistrates; and whether Her Majesty's Government will arrange that, so far as possible, all Acts which come earliest into operation shall be printed and published or circulated in priority to those which are to begin to operate subsequently?
    THE FIRST LORD OF the TREASURY: The existing arrangements are intended to secure the publication of each Act as soon as possible alter it receives the Royal Assent. The Criminal Evidence Act will not become law until two months after it receives the Royal Assent, and it should be obtainable very soon after that. Should there be any reason to apprehend that the official or gratuitous distribution of the Act in ordinary course would not be early enough, instructions will be given for a special issue. I do not, however, think that the present arrangements with regard to the publication of Acts are thoroughly satisfactory, and I am going to have the subject investigated.

    ROYAL COMMISSION ON LOCAL TAXATION.
    MR. LEWIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the Chairman of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation has recently stated that the Report of the Commission will not be ready for one or two years; and whether, in view of the importance and urgency of the subject, he will represent to the Chairman of the Commission the necessity of completing the evidence at the earliest date compatible with adequacy of investigation?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: My noble Friend the Chairman of the Commission informs me that he is not aware that he has made any such statement as that imputed to him in the first paragraph of the Question. With regard to the second paragraph I have to say that the Government have no right to make representations to the Commission; but I have every reason to believe that all possible expedition is being used in carrying out this very elaborate inquiry.
    MR. LAMBERT: Can the right honourable Gentleman say when the Report will be published?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I cannot name any date. The inquiry is not completed yet.

    SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM.
    MR. ASCROFT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the statement contained in the Report of the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the administration of South Kensington Museum, that they very much resented the dismissal of Mr. Weale, an official, called before them, as a breach of privilege and an infringement of the immunity usually enjoyed by witnesses before Committees of this House; and whether the Government intend to reinstate Mr. Weale, or make inquiries with a view to give him compensation for such dismissal?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Report of the Committee has not yet been circulated, and we therefore have had no opportunity of considering it. It is not, however, the fact that Mr. Weale was dismissed. He retired under the age rule at the expiration of the period for which the Treasury, at the request of the Committee of Council, permitted his service to be prolonged.

    COLONIAL TARIFFS.
    COLONEL SIR H. VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the colonies of Germany, France, and Spain enjoy with the Mother Country a reciprocal preferential tariff; and, if these favoured trade relations between different parts of the same Empire, although separated by the sea, have ever been held by this or any other foreign country to infringe the rights of most-favoured-nation treatment?
    MR. CURZON: As regards German colonies the answer is in the negative; as regards the colonies of France, broadly speaking, and of Spain, in the affirmative. Full information on the subject will be found in reports from Her Majesty's representatives abroad, commercial No. 5, 1895, which were obtained at the instance of my honourable and gallant Friend himself. Information in regard to the bearing of the most favoured-nation clauses in treaties on such preferential arrangements between the Colonies and the Mother Country is also given therein. It has been held that the most-favoured-nation clause does not affect the right of this country to extend to the produce of its Colonies more favourable treatment than it accords to the produce of foreign or third countries. A similar opinion has, for the most part, I believe, also prevailed abroad. It will be recollected that one of the chief objects in view in denouncing the treaties, with Germany and Belgium was the securing of complete autonomy to the Colonies in such matters.

    UGANDA.
    SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have any recent information on military events in Uganda which they can communicate to the House with a view to allaying anxiety; whether it is the case that the telegraph has been in working order to Kikuyu since June; whether no information as to events in Uganda has been received by and from the officer in charge at Kikuyu since the reassuring dispatch of Mr. Berkeley,
    656
    dated from Kampala, 21st April; whether the later dispatch, promised by Major MacDonald in his dispatch of the 13th March, has been received, or if it will be issued when received?
    MR. CURZON: In his Report on the recent mutiny, which is dated 16th May and is about to be laid before Parliament, Mr. Berkeley alludes to the dispersal of a body of mutineers from, a position opposite Mruli, on the Victoria Nile, by Major Martyr on 26th April, but no later information of an official character hag readied us. The telegraph line is at Kikuyu and is believed to be in working order. The answer to the third Question is in the negative. The dispatch, which is to deal with the services of the different officers during the mutiny, has not been received, and I cannot therefore make any promise as to its publication.

    ASSESSED TAXES.
    MR. HAZELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. E. Garcke, of 18, Woodstock Road, Chiswick, who complains that, after signing a cheque for the assessed tax in reference to his residence, the cheque was returned because, by a later assessment the amount was not sufficient; whereupon Mr. Garcke wrote inquiring why the assessment had been raised, but the only reply he received was that 12 days after he had received his cheque back a bailiff was put into his house; whereupon he immediately paid the amount and costs; whether he is aware that Mr. Garcke is a man in a good financial position, and able and willing to pay his taxes in due course; and whether he can give some explanation of the cause of these unusual proceedings?
    MR. HANBURY: I have ordered strict inquiry into the circumstances of this case. I have not yet received the Report, but when I do so I will acquaint the honourable Member with the result.

    BRITISH GUIANA.
    MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in the early part of the present year the Combined Count of British Guiana, in view of financial depression in the colony, adopted a resolution in favour of the gradual withdrawal of State aid from, the religious bodies new in receipt of annual grants of public money; and whether it is intended to bring in a Measure for that purpose?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN,: In March last the Combined Court of British Guiana passed a resolution that no persons thereafter appointed to any office in the Church of England or the Church of Scotland should have any vested rights or any claims on the Colonial Government after the 31st of March, 1899. It does not refer to the grants now made to the Roman Catholic and Wesleyan bodies. The Governor has been instructed to consider the question of the gradual abolition or reduction of the endowment by the State of all religious bodies in the colony.

    PATENT PERFECT SAFETY BATTLESHIPS.
    MR. McCARTAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to MacLaine's patent perfect safety battleships; and whether, considering the serious loss of life incident to modern naval warfare, he will have the plans and construction of these battleships carefully examined with a view to their possible introduction into Her Majesty's Navy?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (MR. G. J. GOSCHEN, St. George's,: If the plans are sent to the Admiralty they will be carefully examined.

    PLAGUE IN INDIA.
    SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, on the
    658
    28th April last, the Assistant-Commissioner on plague duty ordered the 6,000 inhabitants of Garshankar to leave the city within 24 hours; that no sufficient number of huts had been erected outside the city to shelter these people from the excessive heat; that a disturbance arose in carrying out these orders; and that the police fired upon the people without orders, killing nine and wounding 48; whether 48 of the survivors were prosecuted and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made by some impartial authority into all the circumstances of the case; also is it the fact that the police refused to stop firing when ordered to do so by the European officers?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: It is rather inconvenient that the Question on the Paper should be extended without notice, but I think I am acquainted with the facts of the case. As soon as it became clear that the plague had established itself in Garshankar every form of persuasion and inducement was used in order to bring about the voluntary evacuation of the town; but, as these means failed, it became necessary at the end of a month to issue positive orders. As to the number of huts provided, I have seen no allegation that it was insufficient. A body of police, on entering the town to enforce these orders, was violently attacked by rioters, and 26 of them were more or less seriously injured; they fired in return, with the result that nine rioters were killed and 27 wounded. I have received no information as yet as to the number of rioters who were prosecuted or the nature of their sentences; but, as at present advised, though I deeply regret the loss of life which occurred, I see no reason to order a special inquiry. As to the supplemental Question, the police were subjected to a most violent assault, and they did fire without orders, but in a very few seconds, I may say, their officers were able to control them. I do not think they were in any way to blame for firing under great provocation.

    PEKIN-HANKOW RAILWAY.
    MR. J. WALTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign. Affairs whether he can state to the House the terms and conditions upon which the concession for the Pekin-Hankow Railway has been granted, and also on what terms and conditions the Russo-Chinese Bank is providing the money for the undertaking; and whether equal rights are expressly reserved for British commerce, as guaranteed by the Treaty of Tientsin?
    MR. CURZON: I informed the honourable Member last week that the terms of the agreement have not yet reached us, and I must repeat the same answer now.

    CHINESE RAILWAY CONCESSIONS.
    MR. J. WALTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the date of the instructions given to Her Majesty's Minister at Pekin to press for the insertion in every railway concession granted by the Chinese Government of a proper provision as to equal treatment of all nationals and trade; and whether, in all concessions which have been granted to foreign Powers or syndicates, our rights have been expressly reserved in this sense, and in conformity with the Treaty of Tientsin by the Chinese Government?
    MR. CURZON: Instructions to resist preferential treatment for foreign subjects or trade were sent to Sir C. Mac-Donald in March last. Renewed and particular instructions with reference to railway concessions were sent to him on 13th July. I am unable to say what may be the provisions of concessions which I have not seen.

    NORTH SEA FISHERIES.
    SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, with reference to the negotiations with the North Sea
    660
    Powers regarding the fisheries question, he is now in a position to state the nature of the instructions to our representatives abroad; and whether any statement on the subject will be made before the Recess?
    MR. CURZON: I do not know to what instructions the honourable Member refers. The negotiations for an international inquiry were initiated by the Swedish Government, in whose hands its prosecution must rest in its initial stages.

    COUNTY INSPECTOR REEVES.
    MR. M'GHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the conduct of County Inspector Reeves, who, on or about the 18th May, 1898, paraded the men in Cavan barracks, and, having addressed them about the stigma which attached to all the men in the barracks owing to some one of them having stolen a comrade's purse, said he felt it to be his duty to make a search of some of the men; whether he called out a sergeant and two constables, and searched them in the presence of their comrades and of the barrack servants without finding any evidence whatsoever to connect them with the theft; whether, subsequently, a charwoman was tried and convicted of the theft; whether he will state by what authority Inspector Reeves made such a search; and. What reparation, if any, has been made to these men?
    MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. GERALD BALFOUR): The facts of this case are, shortly, as follows: a constable stationed at Cavan reported he had left a purse containing over £6 on a form in the barrack kitchen, and that it was not forthcoming the next day. The county inspector thereupon, very properly, assembled the men together, and told them that the larceny of the purse reflected discreditably upon the station, and that in the interests of the men themselves, as well as in order to clear them of suspicion, he felt it to be his duty to examine the boxes of three of the men

    661
    who had been in the kitchen on the night of the occurrence, provided they gave their consent. This consent was readily given, and the boxes were examined in the presence, not of the three men's comrades, as alleged, but of Mr. Reeves, the district inspector, and the head constable. Subsequently one of the barrack servants was arrested and convicted of the theft. The action of the county inspector, under the circumstances of the case, was perfectly justifiable. The men suffered no indignity whatever; no reparation has been made to them, and none is called for.

    CRETE.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will publish the Reports by Sir Herbert Chermside and Consul-General Billiotti upon the proposed scheme of having the coast towns of Crete governed by four European admirals and the interior by a Junta of insurgent chiefs; and what steps the four Great Powers are taking to restore the Mussulmans of Crete to their lands and property from which they have been driven?
    MR. CURZON: There is no Report by Sir. Chermside upon the proposed arrangement, since he had left Crete when it was under discussion. The Consul General's Report will be printed with the other Papers. The restoration of the Mussulmans to their villages can only be gradual, and cannot be attempted until after the provisional régime has been securely established.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Are we to understand that no practical steps; have yet been taken towards the restoration of their land to the Mussulmans?
    MR. CURZON: I do not know what the honourable Member means.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Have any Mussulmans been restored to their land yet?
    MR CURZON: The difficulties in the way of such a step at this moment are too great.

    RAHEITA.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Russia has obtained from the Negus of Abyssinia the Sultanate of Raheita, near Obock, on the Red Sea, and opposite the British island of Perim, as a naval station?
    MR. CURZON: We have no such information; nor am I aware that the Sultanate of Raheita is in the power of Abyssinia to give.

    PEKIN-HANKOW RAILWAY.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received any information as to the reports that the Belgian Syndicate, which holds the concession for the Pekin-Hankow Railway, has transferred its rights to the Russo-Chinese Bank, whose capital has been mainly supplied by the Russian Government?
    MR. CURZON: The information in our possession does not enable me to give an answer to the honourable Member's Question. But the agreement referred to is now under discussion with the Tsung-li-Yamen at Pekin, by whom it has lately been received from Shanghai.

    GERMANY AND THE SHAN-TUNG CONCESSION.
    MR. PROVAND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, since the German occupation of Kiao-chau the German Minister at Pekin has protested against the concession for the railway from Pekin to Chinkiang being granted, or any grant already made being confirmed, to anyone not being a German, because the line will pass through a part of the province of Shan-tung; whether, at a meeting of the foreign consuls at Chefoo, to arrange for an extension of the foreign settlement at that place, the German Consul protested against any enlargement of the settle-

    663
    meat on the ground that it would be an infringement of German rights in the province of Shan-tung; whether Her Majesty's Minister at Pekin has protested against, or in any way recognised, these claims on the part of the German Minister and Consul; and whether, in view of the favoured-nation clause in the Treaty of Tien-tsin, which provides that the British Government and its subjects will be allowed free and equal participation in all privileges, immunities, and advantages that may have been or may be hereafter granted by His Majesty the Emperor of China to the Government or subjects of any other nation, the Government propose to take any steps in the matter?
    MR. CURZON: Sir C. MacDonald telegraphed on the 18th of February that the German Minister had opposed a scheme for a trunk railway from Tientsin to Chinkiang, on the ground that no railway could be constructed in the province of Shan-tung without an arrangement with Germany. A protest was at once made at Pekin on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, and also to the German Government through Her Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin. Thereupon Herr von Bulow addressed a memorandum to Her Majesty's Government, of which the following is the text—
    "The report which has reached Her Britannic Majesty's Government from Pekin, to the effect that Germany has raised objections there to the Chinese scheme for the construction of a railway from Tien-tsin, through Shan-tung, to Chinkiang, and that these objections were based upon the assertion that in the above-named Chinese province no railway could be constructed without the permission of Germany, is not in accordance with facts. There is also no foundation for the statement that the Imperial Minister at Pekin had threatened serious consequences in the event of this claim not being admitted. The demand put forward by the Imperial German Government at Pekin Was merely to the effect that, should the Chinese Government desire to obtain foreign assistance for the construction of railways within the limits of the province of Shan-tung, they should, in the first instance, offer the work and supplies connected therewith, to German industry and German trade. The Imperial Government, true to their principles, have not claimed any exclusive privileges from China, and have made no attempt to exclude other nations from free competition in the province of shan-tung."
    664
    No information has been received at the Foreign Office of any such claim having been made by the German Consul at Chefoo as is referred to.
    MR. YERBURGH: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether the concession was successfully carried through or not, and, if it fell through, what was the ground of its, falling through?
    MR. CURZON: I am not aware that any concession has fallen through. Is the honourable Gentleman asking whether a concession has been given?
    MR. YERBURGH: I am asking whether a concession was granted, and whether it has been withdrawn, and why?
    MR. CURZON: What concession?
    MR. YERBURGH: The concession for a trunk line from Pekin to Chinkiang.
    MR. CURZON: So far that concession has not been given.

    HISPANO-AMERICAN WAR.
    MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government, have any official information in regard to the reported suspension of hostilities between Spain and the United States; and can he state the terms which have been agreed upon between the two Governments concerned?
    MR. CURZON: No information has been received of a suspension of hostilities, nor am I in a position to make any statement as regards the terms of peace.

    VACCINATION.
    MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the legislation which has been passed this Session in reference to compulsory vaccination in England, the Government will consider the advisability of suggesting to the Local Government Board in Scotland

    665
    the desirability of refraining from active prosecution of conscientious objectors?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,: As I have already stated in this House, the system as regards vaccination in Scotland has hitherto worked successfully, and the Secretary for Scotland does not consider that any special suggestion need be made to the Local Government Board on the subject.
    DR. CLARK: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that there has been a considerable increase of vaccination prosecutions in Scotland, and that the Count of Session has decided that defaulters may be summoned every six months until the child is 14 years old; and whether it is the case, as stated at the Dundee Sheriff's Court last week, that instructions were sent out in May by the Local Government Board, Scotland, directing prosecutions?
    MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Local Government Board that they are not aware that there has been any considerable increase of vaccination prosecutions in Scotland as is suggested in the Question. The Court of Session has decided that defaulters may be prosecuted so long as their names appear in the half-yearly lists transmitted by the registrars to the parochial boards (parish councils); but the Board have advised parish councils that they may use their discretion in repeating prosecutions in respect of the same child. The Local Government Board have issued no general instructions as to vaccination prosecutions. On 28th May last they inquired of the inspector of poor, Dundee, how his parish council proposed to deal with defaulters, and were informed that the parish council had resolved to prosecute.
    MR. DALZIEL: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether, in view of the fact that several persons—some in my constituency—are in prison, it is the intention of the Government to allow the conscientious clause to prevail in England and still prosecute for objection in Scotland?
    MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Government intend to maintain the law in Scotland as it is. If the law is to be altered that must be done by Act of Parliament. I certainly hope that no attempt will be made to import into Scotland an agitation which would be exotic and not belonging to Scotland.
    DR. CLARK: Can there be any prosecution except through the Lord Advocate or his deputy?
    MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: Yes, Sir; there can be prosecutions without my intervening.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY [23RD ALLOTTED DAY].
  [8TH AUGUST.]
  Resolutions reported—

  SUPPLY [23RD ALLOTTED DAY].
    CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1898–9.
      CLASS V.
      1."That a sum, not exceeding £1,000, 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, 1899, for a Grant in Aid of the Revenue of the Island of Cyprus."

      CLASS II.
      2."That a sum, not exceeding £30,726, 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, 1899, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture, and to pay certain Grants in Aid."
      3."That a sum, not exceeding £26,787, 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, 1899, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Charity Commission for England and Wales, including the Endowed School Department."
      4."That a sum, not exceeding £132,085, 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, 1899, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board."
      MR. MONK: It will be in the recollection of the House that this Vote was closured before an opportunity was offered of making any remarks either upon the Vote itself or the administration of the Department. I do not know whether my right honourable Friend the President of the Local Government Board is aware, but I may mention that I had a Notice of that on the Paper yesterday to reduce the salary of the Secretary of the Local Government Board by £50; but, in order not to wound the susceptibilities of my right honourable Friend, I withdrew the Motion, and have put down a Motion to reduce the Vote by £50, for I think no one more fully deserves his salary than the Secretary of the Local Government Board. It will, perhaps, be in the recollection of the House that when, in 1896, the Vote of the Local Government Board was under consideration, complaints were made of the great delays which took place in the administration of that Department, and the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, as well as myself, took part in the discussion. The President of the Local Government Board then stated that he had arranged that an inquiry should be made by a Departmental Committee as to the staff and organisation of the Local Government Board, and consequent, I suppose, upon some arrangement with the Treasury, a very considerable increase has taken place in the staff of that Department. I find that the salaries of the staff are increased by £8,926, and that there is an increase of £4,208 in the salaries of district auditors, making a total increase of £13,134. Now, I am sure that no one will find fault with that large increase, provided that there has been efficiency in the administration. I am glad to see the right honourable Gentleman is now in his place. I was reminding the House that in 1896, two years ago, when the Local Government Vote was under consideration, the right honourable Gentleman informed the House that he had appointed a Com-
      668
      mittee to consider what increase was necessary in his Department, and the consequence of that, I presume, has been that there has been an increase of £8,926 in the salaries of the clerks, and £4,208 in those of the district auditors. No Member of this House would object, I am sure, to that large increase, provided that there was a practical advance in the efficiency of the Department. But, notwithstanding this large increase in the staff, the number of clerks having been increased from 266 to 326, I have received complaints from different quarters that great delay takes place in attending to the correspondence of the Department. The Department takes a very long time to answer complaints or questions properly addressed to them, and of this I will give a practical illustration. A rural district council in Hertfordshire obtained the sanction of the Local Government Board to construct waterworks for a parish in its district, and was also authorised to apply certain moneys belonging to the parish to that purpose, and to raise a loan sufficient to complete the sum necessary to construct the waterworks. On the 17th of May last I ascertained that the rural district council had issued a precept to the overseers of the parish to raise a rate partly for the purchase of the land upon which the waterworks were to be constructed, and partly for the legal expenses connected with it. Now, it appeared to me that the payments to which I have referred ought to be charged to capital account, and I so advised the parish council, of which I am the chairman, and wrote to the Local Government Board, giving them full particulars. I wrote upon the 17th of May, and for five weeks no notice was taken of the matter. I spoke on two occasions to my right honourable Friend, who assured me that it should be attended to, and he expressed surprise that I had heard nothing in reference to it. So it went on to the 20th of July, when I received a reply, but then I did not get the opinion of the right honourable Gentleman, or of his advisers, as to the legality or illegality of the precept issued by the rural district council. In the meantime part of the rate had been collected, but on my advice the collector ceased to collect the rest of the rate. What I ask is, What has the Department

      669
      been doing between the 17th of May and the 29th of June, when the Local Government Board at length called the attention of the rural district board to the matter? The whole thing was practically pigeon-holed, and I think, with this large increase of staff, an earlier reply ought to have been required from the rural district board, but I have no doubt it was entirely forgotten. I put this question to the House: If a Member of this House finds it is absolutely impossible to get a reply from this Department on behalf of his parish council, what possible chance have those unfortunate parish councils who have not a Member of this House to whom they can appeal in matters of this kind to obtain a reply for them? Now, I merely state that case as an illustration; but I put it to the right honourable Gentleman whether he should not keep a little tighter hand over the rural district councils, and not allow them to expend, in respect of the parishes in their district, large sums, without their cognisance, unless or until they have been properly audited by the Government auditors. I think the parish councils ought to have a larger voice, and a greater power in superintending those works which are sanctioned within their boundaries, and that the entire control should not be left to the rural district council, unless the rural district council is supervised by the Local Government Board. To put myself in order, I beg to move the Vote be reduced by the sum of £50.
      COLONEL BLUNDELLsaid his constituency was interested in a local loan, and he thought it ought to be understood that where money was borrowed for some object clearly desirable, but not necessary, the generation that borrowed should pay; but where a large expenditure was forced upon a locality, ruled by any conventional system, care should be taken that the particular generation that borrowed the money should only bear its own share of the expense of an undertaking which would probably benefit many future generations.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am very glad that the honourable Member for Gloucester
      670
      raised this question. It is a very important one, and a complaint which is common all over the country. It is not a complaint which is levelled against the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, or any official in that Department. On the contrary, so far as my experience goes, it shows that they have done their very best to reduce the grievances from which the local authorities suffer from the undermanning of the Department. I think they have done their work capitally, under the circumstances. It would be very difficult to say where there is a more efficient staff than that of the Local Government Board. But it would be impossible for them, as constituted at present, to do the work well. They may extend their staff by 60 to 600, but the result would be the same. The real thing is that the heads of the Department cannot take upon themselves the multifarious duties cast upon them by Parliament every year. There are several Acts of Parliament passed this year which impose fresh duties on the Local Government Board. The Local Government Hating Bill, for instance, casts very onerous duties upon the Local Government Board, and it is impossible for them, as at present constituted, to cope with the ever-increasing work which is cast upon them. We had a Debate upon this subject in 1896, and we called attention to the matter then, and since that time the position has been considerably aggravated and intensified. The answer given by the President of the Local Government Board was an excellent one, and I certainly do wish that he had been able to introduce legislation, or make some alteration of the rules which are now in force under the Act of 1888. The Committee which was appointed recently for the purpose of looking into this matter in their first Report reported that the staff was undermanned. In the second Report that was made a more important point was referred to with regard to the devolution of the powers upon the local authorities. Now, I am sure that, under the Act of 1888, the Local Government Board had power to devolve a good deal of the powers now vested in them upon the local authorities; and I venture to impress upon the right honourable Gentleman that the

      671
      time has now arrived when he ought to take this matter into serious consideration. I would venture to suggest that the right honourable Gentleman should not look to the officials behind him for advice, but should take the matter into his own hands. It is only natural that the officials should be 10th to give up any of the work. They are not afraid of work there; on the contrary, they are rather greedy of work. I think if the right honourable Gentleman took the matter in hand and did something in that way, he would meet the wishes of both sides of the House. I am not asking him to do anything revolutionary in the matter, but whether he will do something in the way of the Act of 1888, which rendered it necessary to lay the Provisional Orders upon the Table of the House. I venture to suggest that something might be done in this way. Take the powers which are now entrusted to the Local Government Board, and which might be left to the local authorities, under the powers already entrusted to the Local Government Board; take the question of the sanction of loans. If an urban council wants a loan of £500 or £ 1,000 they apply to the Local Government Board, which send down an inspector to inquire into the matter, and, having done so, they do not give you any opinion upon it. They do answer your letters, but there is a great difference in answering a letter and attending to the requests that are in that letter. After a good deal of pressure they begin to hunt up the papers, and they find that the inspector has made his report, and that it has been handed over to some clerk—some permanent official. He is overloaded with work, and has to get this report out from a mass of reports that are waiting their time, and in the end he sees that there is nothing to be said against it, and sanction is given. But it is a very serious thing for the local authorities to have to wait all this time; it may be that that local authority wants a water supply, and under the present arrangements they might have to wait for years. Now, that is a matter which, in my opinion, might be delegated, not to the local authority itself, but to some higher authority—it may be the county council. It is suggested that there should be a limit of £5,000, and
      672
      that when the loan that is required is under that amount, then it should be left to the local authority to see how the money is to be spent. I object to that, and I think that it ought to be subject to the supervision of some higher authority. The county council, for instance, would look into these matters, in which they have no local interest; and I think that it would be necessary that this power should vest in the county councils, like the parish boundaries, which are thrashed out before the county councils now. I think if the Local Government Board could see their way to do something in that way, and I venture to suggest that it should be done in the course of the next Session of Parliament——
      MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member is now discussing legislation.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: No, Sir. I should in that case have gone into a much larger question of devolution.
      MR. SPEAKER: I understand the honourable Member to say something about something being done next Session, and I gather from that that he referred to legislation.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Then I have used the wrong word. What I should have said was that perhaps this question might receive some consideration during the next Recess. Most of these things could be done without any legislation at all. Now, with regard to appointments, I think the recommendations by the Committee dealing with these appointments might be carried out. At the same time, I do not think the appointments ought to be left entirely to the local authorities, when the right honourable Gentleman could exercise the powers of the Act of 1888. Another point is the question of boundaries. I do not see why the question of boundaries of one county and another should have to be determined by the officials of the Local Government Board, who at present have to determine the issues. There is also a way out of that under the Act of 1888 without any legislation whatever. There was the Commission which thrashed this question out in the House of Commons.

      673
      There was a dispute between towns, as to a representative upon the Local Government Board. The Local Government Board sent a gentleman down and investigated the circumstances, and the result was a very heavy expense. Now, such a question as that could be very much better adjusted by gentlemen down in the localities, and who know the districts thoroughly. Now, from the Report of the right honourable Gentle man's Commission, one of the great difficulties which the Local Government Board laboured under is the difficulty of adjusting the local jealousies of county councils and urban authorities, county councils and town councils. I venture to suggest that if the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board can see his way to make the experiment, that if the county and the town councils of Wales during the Recess met as they did once before at Shrewsbury, and agreed upon a general scheme, I would ask this: if they are able to agree upon a general scheme, and submit it to the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, will he consider favourably putting into operation the powers already vested in him under the Act of 1888? Would he consider favourably the delegation of certain powers to a body of that kind which would be purely administrative Bowers, and which would result in relieving the congestion of the business of the Local Government Board, whilst they would contribute largely to the benefit of our local administrations, and I am sure would also benefit the Local Government Board in the long run? I ask very earnestly that the right honourable Gentleman will look into the matter during the coming Recess and see what can be done.
      MR. DRAGE: Before the right honourable Gentleman answers that question would he allow me to ask a question with regard to the administration of the poor law? In the first place I would like to ask the right honourable Gentleman whether his attention has been called to a recent decision of a metropolitan magistrate under the Industrial Schools Act of 1866, by which the children known as "ins and outs" can be taken away from their parents and remanded to an industrial
      674
      school, because it seems to me that the right honourable Gentleman is in this difficulty—that either he must go forward in the direction of the Hammersmith Schools or else the Industrial Schools Act must be put into force, and the children are taken away from the custody of their parents. The House is probably unaware of the fact that it is possible for parents to take their children in and out of the workhouse, a practice which is followed always with the result, and sometimes with the object, of depriving them of education, which leads to their being brought up to a life of vice and crime, and is also prejudicial to their health. I suggest that the time has now come when the right honourable Gentleman should take measures to enforce the law under the Industrial Schools Act of 1866. Besides unscrupulous parents who remove children from respectable employment back to the workhouse there are unscrupulous employers who take advantage of children being pauper children to pay them inadequate wages. Further powers should be given to the guardians to prevent the abuse. The Girls' Friendly Society and the Metropolitan Association for Befriending Young Servants have done immense good in such cases. But difficulties are sometimes placed in their way by boards of guardians, and I hope the right honourable Gentleman will do anything he can to assist these associations. Of late there has been a great increase of vagrancy, largely owing to the lack of uniformity and continuity of administration of the Act of 1882 on this subject. The right honourable Gentleman has directed an inquiry to be made on this subject, and it would be interesting to know what are the results of that inquiry.
      MR. LEWIS: May I allude to the question raised by my honourable Friend the Member for Carnarvon, which was also alluded to by the honourable Member for Gloucester, namely, the desirability of devolving from the Local Government Board to the local authorities some portion of the huge amount of work which now falls to the share of the Local Government Board. It has been evident for a long time past that the Local Government Board has been

      675
      overworked and undermanned. I do not for a moment wish to say that it is not well manned as regards the capacity of the gentlemen who are there, and particularly the Permanent Secretary of the Local Government Board is one of the ablest men in the Civil Service; but, Sir, the appointment of the Departmental Committee to consider how the difficulties can be overcome shows that we have now arrived at a critical stage in the proceedings. That being the case, it is of extreme importance that this opportunity should be taken, not for the purpose of perpetuating the centralisation of what ought to be provincial work in London, but for devolving a certain portion of that work upon the local authorities. Wales is ready for devolution of that character. The Welsh county councils have repeatedly expressed their opinion upon it. I think that Wales has shown conclusively that some devolution of this kind is necessary. We have seen quite recently in educational matters devolution extended to Wales. We have a central board which controls intermediate education in Wales, and which represents the Welsh county councils and other authorities. It is marvellous how, in connection with a subject so thorny as that of education, every difficulty has been surmounted. The progress has been so satisfactory that you find the Secretary of the Charity Commissioners, speaking in Yorkshire, commending the example of Wales to Yorkshire. We are ready for this devolution. We are prepared to accept it, and to say that if you entrust us with these powers we will exercise them in such a way as to do the devolution you confer upon us no discredit whatever. We have had the experience of some years of the working of county councils, and they have amply justified their existence. I would ask the right honourable Gentleman to- trust the county councils still further. I know that in the past the Department has made an effort to devolve a large amount of its work upon the county councils. That effort met with considerable opposition on the part of the Association of Municipal Boroughs. Now, I think that if the right honourable Gentleman were to give us some devolution of that kind in Wales he would not meet with
      676
      the same opposition; at all events, the kind of opposition that was made in England. I venture to believe that he will find that nothing would give greater satisfaction generally in Wales than a favourable response to this appeal.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN,: I will endeavour briefly to reply to the various statements that have been made on the different questions. As to the question of poor law reform and poor law children, the Department is quite alive to the necessity of dealing with it. We have also been considering the point which has been raised with reference to the advantages conferred by the Exmouth training ship. The work done on board that ship has been admirable, and still more admirable results are expected to follow. Representations will be made to as many guardians as can be found to induce them to send the children under their charge to undergo the same admirable training, and I can assure the honourable Member who has called my attention to the subject that any means I can employ to further this training on the Exmouth shall be used. An honourable Member put to me a question as to the Yeovil board of governors, and I have a very distinct recollection of what took place in that particular case, but I will make it my business to more fully inquire into it, and to see whether I can in any way meet the views expressed on behalf of the board as to the termination of the engagement of their officers; but, as far as I remember, the case did not appear to be one of extreme importance. At the same time, it appears to involve a principle in the work of the Local Government Board, which has been in vogue for many years. Perhaps I may be permitted to say a word before I sit down with regard to the progress we have been endeavouring to make with reference to the arrears of work since the last addition was made to the staff of the Department. I need not remind the House that the Local Government Board came in with an unenviable notoriety in regard to the amount of its arrears, and certainly a year or two ago the amount of these arrears was appalling. I do not

      677
      say that the condition of the Department is altogether what I should like to see at the present time, especially with regard to the work connected with the loans, where we are still in arrear, and this is mainly due to the abnormal increase of work in regard to that particular feature. Now, it is a question which must come under our consideration whether I should not again ask for an increase of staff, so as to permit of the duties being adequately discharged; but in other branches of the Department there has been a great improvement already. I take the case of appeals against allowances, where the number of cases of arrears has been reduced from 1,050 to 350, both current and in arrear, of which number the current cases were more than half. Then I come to the Statistical Department, which was enormously in arrear at the beginning of 1897. The reason for that was that practically the whole staff of that Department was appropriated to the extra work caused by the passing of the Eating Act. At present, however, there are no arrears in the Statistical Department, and the work is more forward than it has ever been before, and the Returns have been got out earlier than last year. The audits of the county councils and local authorities are also more forward than they have been for many years, and, with the exception of that branch of the Department to which I have referred, there is nothing of which the Department need be ashamed. The arrears which exist in the Engineering Department are partly owing to the great increase in the number of applications. There were over 40 in one week not very long ago. Another fact which has been taken into account is the retirement or change of duty of several of the best men, and the new men—I need not explain in detail— require a great deal of supervision and teaching. On the whole, the arrears we have to face now are not of long standing, they are of recent date; and, as I have said, we have every reason to congratulate ourselves upon the present condition of' the work.
      SIR H. FOWLER: I think the House will be agreed that it is unfortunate that, this important Vote Should have only been brought on
      678
      a few minutes before 10 o'clock, last night, and that the House is reduced to the defective method of discussing it on the Report stage. I do hope that in future years some better arrangement will be made to secure to the House a really full discussion of the important work of this Department. My honourable Friend the Member for Gloucester introduced two questions into this Debate which are of great importance. The first was directed—I won't say to the reconstruction of, but to an improvement in, the administration of the Local Government Board, with which the right honourable Gentleman has just been dealing. That was a step in the right direction, but it was only a step after all, and I do not think that the Report of the right honourable Gentleman's departmental Committee was adequate. I think the Committee was timid in its scheme of reorganisation of the administration of the Local Government Board, while the Treasury has chosen to reduce the proportions of the scheme, without regard to the special exigencies of the case. I am bound to say that the right honourable Gentleman takes a very optimistic view of the state of the Department; at any rate, outside opinion is not so well satisfied as inside opinion appears to be with reference to its progress. The right honourable Gentleman has himself admitted a defect in regard to the Engineering branch. I venture to encourage the right honourable Gentleman to again approach the Treasury, and, if need be, to throw upon it the responsibility if it will not accede to the demands of the Minister anxious to-remedy a public inconvenience of a serious impediment in the local administration of the country. With reference to the other question to which my right honourable Friend referred—the question of devolution. Well, Sir, that, I think, is one of the first questions that ought to engage the attention of the Local Government Board. I have not had the advantage of seeing what the right honourable Gentleman calls a. Report, but, from what I can gather, seems to have been a sort of fiasco, because the Committee discovered, after they had taken all the evidence, that they themselves were not properly consti-

      679
      tuted. I think the right honourable Gentleman ought to settle that question for them at once. Devolution is one of the first questions that ought to engage the attention of the Local Government Board, but I do not think that a Departmental Committee is the best tribunal to which the question should be referred. I think it should have been referred to a Select Committee of the House. The right honourable Gentleman will probably recall the great controversy which arose with reference to the devolution of power to the newly-formed county councils. Well, Sir, in those days there was a great distrust of county councils, and honourable Gentlemen opposite did not take that enthusiastic view of their capacity and power that we took on this side of the House; and, if I remember aright, the clause which has been referred to to-day—namely, clause 10 in the Local Government Act—was a compromise which, instead of defining what powers were to be transferred, included a Provisional Order, which the Local Government Board had power to put in for the transfer of the duties of any Department which appeared to be of an administrative character. Well, practically, Sir, nothing has been done under that clause, and I think we are very much indebted to honourable Members for raising this question in a practical form. We understand that the right honourable Gentleman has instituted this inquiry, but it need not be abortive, because the right honourable Gentleman will be the best judge, upon the evidence given, of what should be done, and I am sure, if he makes one or two Provisional Orders, and not be frightened by local difficulties and jealousies, I think he will find that Parliament will be ready to support him in carrying out the ultimate end and intention of this great scheme of local government. This House has complained —everyone has complained—that we have capital Bills ready in the Departmental pigeon-holes, but Parliament has not the time to deal with them, and so a vast amount of good work is left undone. You have admirable organisation in these county councils, singularly capable of doing the work quickly, well, and economically, and practically they
      680
      are crying out for more work to do. I think it is a great pity that a valuable instrument like the county council should be allowed to rust for want of additional powers. I know I am touching on dangerous ground, and must keep clear of legislative suggestion, but I may, perhaps, express my opinion that the only practical way to relieve the present congested state of public business in this House is by a large measure of devolution to local-authorities of an administrative character. I am pleased to hear that the right honourable Gentleman will give his best consideration to the scheme put forward with reference to Wales, and I can see no reason why, in such a case, with freedom from a great deal of the jealousy that crippled local government in this country, if the local authorities can agree on a dividing line between the various classes of local authorities, and present a scheme which they are prepared to support, totally irrespective of political differences, I cannot see why the Local Government Board should not look on it with favour, and endeavour to secure the sanction of Parliament to it through the medium of a Provisional Order. I recognise with pleasure the spirit and intention indicated by the right honourable Gentleman in dealing with this matter, and I congratulate him on the improved state of his Department. I believe, if he had been a little more pertinacious, and applied a little more pressure to the Treasury, and the Treasury would be a little more generous, there would be less complaint of delay than there is at present. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will seriously take up this question of devolution as a means of solving great problems that have long perplexed the House.
      Question put, and Resolution agreed to.
      5. "That a sum, not exceeding £114,773, 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, 1699, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board in Ireland, including certain Grants in Aid of Local Taxation."
      MR. DAVITT: Sir, with reference to distress in the West of

      681
      Ireland, we Irishmen feel humiliated when I called upon, in the discharge of our duty, to come begging for relief from this House on behalf of our fellow-countrymen, who inhabit a land as naturally rich and fertile as any country in Europe. While English Members show an impatience, and look upon our demands as an inroad on the common exchequer, it must not be forgotten that in this instance the demand had to be made by the Government. Sir, the relief of distress which was necessitated this year will entail, I believe, a charge of £50,000 more—in a word, in this year we have had fully £100,000 expended in order that men, women, and children in the west of Ireland should be saved from absolute destitution. These, Sir, are simple facts relating to the distress of this year, but these facts are of minor importance when compared with the stern fact so familiar to all of us—namely, that the distress of this year was only a symptom of a recurring malady. The periodical character of this distress is so fixed, as it were, in the economic and social conditions of the people in these distressed districts, that unless a barrier is erected against its recurrence it is almost certain that within the next five, six, or seven years Irish Members will again have to appeal to the Government to advance public money towards the relief of the poor people. Now this, Sir, is a matter which I respectfully ask the House to calmly consider before we leave for the long vacation, and I respectfully call the attention of the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House to this problem. Sir, I am content that chronic distress in these districts is capable of being remedied—in fact, I think that is now the general opinion of all those who have made a study of the question. I am precluded, I believe, from discussing legislative remedies, but there are facts which I feel will help to carry conviction. I have alluded so far to the distress of these districts direct, but it will be in the memory of honourable Members that in 1891 large sums of money were called for by the present Leader of the House, who was then Chief Secretary for Ireland, to expend in these districts on the building of railways, which had for their object the relief of the poverty.
      682
      I have not the exact figures with me, but I believe the right honourable Gentleman obtained from Parliament over half a million of money for the carrying out of these various and useful works. In 1886 there was also distress in these very districts, and a sum of £40,000 had to be voted by Parliament to meet the evil of that particular year. Then again in 1889 and 1890 there was a far worse visitation of this calamity. Not less than two millions of money had to be expended in 1889 and 1890. In the early sixties we had the same evil in a modified form, while history tells us that earlier we had a famine, the like of which I hope will never be experienced in Ireland again, and which appealed to the sympathy of the whole civilised world. Going still further back, we had the famine of 1821 and 1822, which cost the Exchequer £300,000, whilst a charitable public subscribed the same sum. Then, Sir, during the century in which we live we have found the famines of 1821 and 1847, and we have had instances of it in 1860, 1879, 1886, 1891, and the present year, and I think I would be well within the mark in saying that the relief of these various famines must have cost in public money eight or 10 million pounds. Now, Sir, I prefer not to dwell upon all the suffering that these famines have inflicted on the Irish people. My object is to bring home to the public mind of England what this evil costs in taxation, in the hope that they may see how much cheaper it will be to grapple with it.
      MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member is now advocating legislative measures, which is not in order.
      MR. DAVITT: I was suggesting that some remedy was required, but I am precluded from discussing that remedy. All I wish to do is to point out that this distress is a symptom of a recurring malady, and that, unless some action be taken, we will again have this distress in a few years' time. I wish to put before the House facts showing how this distress arises every few years, in order that some suggestion may follow as to future action. Of course, Sir, if you tell me that I am not privileged to do so, I must sit down.
      MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member's argument points to legislation, and consequently is not in order.
      MR. DAVITT: In that event of course I must bow to your ruling, Sir. I only wish to say this, that we appeal most confidently to the Leader of this House, who has already attempted, in 1891, and subsequently, to provide some remedy for this state of things. I appeal to him earnestly that during this Recess he will think this matter out, that he will bear in mind the facts and figures I have mentioned, and that though this recurring distress has cost an enormous sum of public money to the taxpayers of this country, yet it has cost hundreds of thousands of lives to the people of Ireland. I contend that it will be a great reproach and a scandal to the Government of this country, unless, before another visitation, of distress comes along, some attempt has been made to grapple with this evil. I maintain, Sir, that if the people living in these congested districts, people who will have to be relieved out of public money and private charity, if they are allowed to exercise their industrial energies on the land, and if additions are made to these holdings, I maintain that we should have an end put to these periodical petitions for help. These poor people, as well as their representatives in this House, do not wish to appear as mendicants before this Parliament and before the world. There are natural means at hand to enable them to free themselves from poverty and destitution if this Parliament will enable them to do so. I confidently appeal to the right honourable Gentleman to go on with the work he began when he founded the Congested Districts Board, and he will build a monument, the foundation of which he laid a few years ago, in 1891.
      THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (MR. A. J. BALFOUR,: Sir, the honourable Gentleman has accused the House of being reluctant to discuss questions connected with distress in the west of Ireland. I think, Sir, in that he was rather unjust to the great majority of the Members of the House, who, I am convinced, have aways taken the greatest interest in one
      684
      of the most perplexing and embarrassing problems which the statesmen of this country, or indeed, of any country have had to face. Now, Sir, what is that problem? It is not simply that in Ireland we have occasionally to deal with exceptional distress; that is, unfortunately, an incident which cannot be avoided in any country. Times will come—they have come, for example, in Lancashire, in connection with the cotton industry; they have come in other parts of this country in connection with other industries—in which large sections of the population have been reduced, through no fault of their own, through the operation of economic and natural laws, to a state of deep distress. I do not know that in their case this House has ever thought fit to come to their assistance by grants of public moneys as they have in the case of Ireland; but there is this justification, among others, for the difference between them, that in this country there almost always is in the distressed area a considerable population not affected by the particular causes of distress, and in consequence of that fact it has been found possible, as a rule, to deal with such cases of exceptional distress through the ordinary machinery of local assistance. The local poor law and local charities, supplemented, no doubt, by general charities, these have been found sufficient to deal with those cases apart from contributions from, the Imperial Exchequer. In Ireland, unfortunately, that is not the case. In Ireland, when these periodical distresses have occurred, it is true, as the right honourable Gentleman has pointed out, that from time to time this House has been asked to come to the assistance of the poor agriculturists in the west of Ireland, and the taxpayer generally has been required to subscribe to the assistance of one particular class of the community. Sir, the justification for that exception in the case of Ireland lies partly in historical causes, to which I do not think it necessary or desirable to allude; but even more in the special circumstances of the case, and among the special circumstances, especially, the fact that there is no class in these western districts who are capable of coming to the assistance of their poorer brethren,

      685
      there is no large supply of local wealth out of which their necessities can be fully met. Undoubtedly, local resources should first be taxed as far as they can be fairly taxed for that purpose, but they are not sufficient. Even in the present year, in which we are supposed to behave with undue harshness, as I understand, in the matter of distress, the country has contributed a great deal more than the local authorities were asked to do, and the fact to which the honourable Gentleman has referred, of recurring distress and recurring assistance from, this House, has found a new and melancholy exemplification. Of course, the causes of this distress, the economic causes of this distress, are not far to seek. They arise from a cause which may be described in one word, want of variety in the sources from which the local population derive their subsistence. For a long time it was the potato alone in many parts of the country on which they depended. Hardly anything else was at their disposal, hardly any other source of livelihood was open to them; and when the potato disease declared itself, and when, from time to time, that disease has recurred in any serious form, people dependent on potatoes necessarily and obviously must suffer acute distress. Sir, the want of variety can only be met in two ways. You may increase the variety of the agricultural products, or you may increase the number of trades or professions which these people have at their disposal. Both of these objects ought to be aimed at by anybody who desires to remedy the distress in the west of Ireland. We may point to the action of the Congested Districts Board as one machinery by which variety in industries has been augmented. If a man is dependent partly on fishing and partly on potatoes, let us say, to take a very simple case, it is manifest that unless there happens to be a failure of fishing and potatoes in the same year, he has, at all events, some resource on which he can depend, even though fishing may be less prosperous than in previous years, and although the potatoes may be suffering more or less from serious disease. The greatest difficulty, no doubt, arises from those parts of Ireland where there is no access to the sea.
      686
      There you cannot hope to increase the variety of their interests by fishing, but something may be done in the way of planting other industries. Everybody knows how difficult the operation is. Everybody acquainted with the history of economics knows that it is no simple matter to introduce new industries, cottage industries or other industries, artificially, in a population where there is neither the natural education nor that natural aptitude that conies from generations of experience, and where capital is not forthcoming from local or other sources, and in order to supply the necessary machinery and necessary plant for the new industries which it is desired to found. There remains only one other means by which this variety may be obtained, and that is by so increasing the size of the holdings in the occupation of these agriculturists who have neither fishing to depend on to supplement their income nor other industries other than fishing. Unless we can increase the size of the holdings, I do not see how it is possible altogether to prevent the recurrence of these periodical seasons of distress when the potato disease makes its periodical visitations.
      MR. DAVITT: I am sorry to interrupt the right honourable Gentleman. It is true that in this very year, in places where subsidiary industries were established by the Congested Districts Board, the cry of distress was raised almost at once, and large sums of money had to be distributed, whereas in Clare Island, which was purchased by the Congested Districts Board, and in which the holdings were enlarged, no distress whatever prevailed in the island, and no money of any kind was distributed. That illustrates, I think, the last point of the right honourable Gentleman.
      THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not gather that there is any conflict between the honourable Gentleman and myself on this subject. We are both agreed, as I understand, that variety is what is wanted, whether the variety is obtained by industries other than agricultural industries or by increasing the variety of agricultural products, and that is only possible if the holdings themselves are enlarged. That is the problem, and the problem can only gradually be solved. I should be

      687
      trespassing on your ruling, Mr. Speaker, if I were to discuss with the honourable Gentleman the means by which that solution could be effected, but I think the whole House must be at one with me in thinking that in those parts—in any part of the country—dependent on agriculture alone, it is to the increase of the size of the holdings, and to that chiefly, that we must look. I do not wish to underrate what has been done in the way of improving the actual yield of the holdings as they now exist. I think a good deal has been done, but undoubtedly the condition of agriculture in the west of Ireland has been such that the best methods of agriculture, the best method of raising stock, the best methods of turning the land to account, have not been always within the reach of the population. I think the Congested Districts Board has done much to remedy that, and is in process of doing more. Much may be done, but still it is obvious that if a holding be too small to support a family in comfort, year in and year out, no mere improvement in the method of agriculture would afford a sufficient remedy for that evil. I hope, therefore, we may gradually see in the west of Ireland, especially those districts of it to which I have referred, such gradual growth in the size of the holdings as may ultimately make these recurring distresses more and more rare an their occurrence, and in time, it may be, finally to disappear altogether. I emphatically endorse what fell from the honourable Member in one part of his speech. I quite agree with him as to the demoralising effect of these applications to the community for assistance, whether they are addressed to the charitable public, or to this House. The honourable Member knows, and I know, that sometimes the cry of distress is—I will not say a fictitious cry, but an exaggerated cry. I do not say that as a matter of blame to anybody concerned, for it is absolutely inevitable. If people have once sunk into the unfortunate, but in this case inevitable, position of having to apply to Parliament or the country for assistance, when distress occurs, the process is too simple and too obvious not to be occasionally resorted to when, as a matter of fact, distress does not amount in quantity or quality to a degree which
      688
      would justify the giving of assistance. I do not say that as a matter of criticism or blame; I mention it as a fact, which no one who is acquainted with the district in question can dispute, and such a fact is extremely demoralising; and every lover of Ireland, whether he sits on the other side of the House, or on this, would desire that it should disappear as soon as possible. That the Irish in the west of Ireland should be put far above the necessity of appealing for public assistance is my most earnest desire, and as far as the Government can further that object, I can assure the honourable Member that they will do so. I rather think the honourable Member had in his mind legislative projects and machinery, to which I might find it impossible to assent. I think it right to say that—without trespassing upon your ruling, Sir—in order to avoid misconception; but I, for my part, fully concur with the honourable Member in the object he has in view. I think he has put his finger on the evil with which we have to deal, and I should be glad to give him, or any other person, every assistance in my power to carry out this object.
      MR. DILLON: We all regret the absence of the Chief Secretary, and also the cause of his absence, and we trust he may soon be able to resume his work. I have been extremely desirous of going at some length into the disputed cases which have arisen between us as to the disposition of relief in Ireland, but in the absence of the right honourable Gentleman I do not care to go into the question. Now, Sir, the speech to which we have just listened is a speech full of sympathy with the condition of the people in the west of Ireland, and I deeply regret that, perhaps partially owing to your ruling, Sir, we have not had a more definite foreshadowing of an earnest attempt on the part of the Government to deal, though at the eleventh hour, with this deplorable state of things. I know, Sir, that we are debating this subject under circumstances of great difficulty, and what I propose to confine myself to for a brief period is a criticism of the administration of relief which has obtained during the present year, and also to make a slight comparison between that system and the system

      689
      adopted by the Congested Districts Board with regard to the administration of relief in the west of Ireland during the present year. I have protested on every possible occasion against the spirit and the method of that administration, and I do so, Sir, because I believe it to be based upon a radically false idea. The extension of the principle laid down by the Chief Secretary for the administration of relief in the west of Ireland during this distress, if it were accepted by us without protest, is likely to postpone what we all desire—namely, the application of a permanent remedy. Why do I take that view? I take that view because, in my opinion, the Government, in dealing with this question, have uniformly, or, to a great extent—whatever they may say in their speeches— overlooked the real facts of the situation. Now, the First Lord of the Treasury states in one sentence—and he is perfectly correct, in my judgment—the only ground upon which the Government can justify their action in coming to the relief by a special grant for those western districts. He pointed out that we have had depression in England, Scotland, and Wales, and other parts of Ireland, and that the Government had not felt called upon to make special grants. Then why, he asked, had successive Governments felt themselves compelled to make special grants of money to meet the ever-recurring periods of distress in the west of Ireland? And he went on to explain why. He said—
      "Because here you have a population occupied in one single industry, and in some large districts there is no population sufficiently wealthy to come to the relief of their fellows who are in a state of starvation, whereas, in other parts of the country, there is always some section of the people who are not suffering distress, and who are able to hear a portion of the exceptional distress which affects their neighbours."
      Now, Sir, that is at the bottom of the whole question. You have here a population living in an entirely exceptional way, a large population and a large area of country in a chronic state of bankruptcy. Even in an ordinary year the population is always on the verge of starvation, and is not able to meet its ordinary and normal obligations, and, as the right honourable
      690
      Gentleman has truly said, the Government is bound to come to their relief by the special means of public funds—Irish funds, but still public funds—because the district is so poor and the mass of the population is so sunk in poverty that it is impossible for the surrounding population to bear the extra burden of its relief. That being so, and being so in the words of the right honourable Gentleman himself, how does he justify the new departure, which seeks to throw this extra yoke upon people in this chronic state of poverty? There it is, Sir, that I say that this new policy of the Government is radically wrong. Nothing could be imagined more cruel, or more indefensible, or more unjust, than to say that in such distress as we have in the west of Ireland in a year like the present, "You must increase your rates, in order to feed those who are actually starving." Now, Sir, it would be very difficult to get into the minds of men who live in a country like England any adequate appreciation of the actual facts. I have in my hand a copy of one of the exceedingly interesting letters, which have appeared in the Manchester Guardian, by Professor Long. Mr. Long is a prominent agricultural expert, a strong Unionist in politics, and a supporter of the Government, and therefore his words ought to carry great weight, because they put in a striking light—I am not exaggerating the intensity of the poverty— the frightful condition of the people. This is what he says—
      "Father Healy has employed a good many men who have been glad to work for 6d. a day, which, I take for granted, is a wage he would have increased had he possessed the means. So much was work sought at the Government pay of 10d. a day that 50 men walked 40 miles in one day to see the guardians, and endeavour to induce them to grant orders for relief work, but entirely without success. Let us all endeavour to comprehend what this means to under-fed men, with families wanting food. Can we imagine the apparent hopelessness of life one who, after such an expenditure of physical energy, returns to his cabin and his famishing little ones still further from all that he needs, worn, and weary, and almost abandoning hope?"
      Just imagine a population where you have a large body of men anxious to work for 6d. a day, and walking a distance of 20 miles and back again in

      691
      order to get orders for relief work at 10d. a day! If that is the condition that prevails, it is no use to provide temporary remedies; you must deal with the matter in a way which will bring these people permanently out of their chronic condition of distress and starvation. As long as you have these families living on holdings which are entirely too small for them, and as long as they are charged rack rents of 10s. or 15s. an acre for land worth only 1s., you cannot improve their condition. Without going back over the disputed points between us and the Chief Secretary, I hold that the Government are going backwards when they propose, by the legislation introduced this year and by the administration of the present relief works, to depart from the previous practice and to shift on to the shoulders of these bankrupt and poverty-stricken unions so large a proportion of the relief of exceptiona1 distress as they can squeeze out of them. That is the present position, and I say that in my opinion this is a step backwards, and is a policy which we must oppose, not only because of the temporary consequences which will follow upon it, but because it seems to me to indicate that the Government are approaching this question in a less sympathetic spirit and with a less larger comprehension of the problem they have to deal with than previous Governments have done. Now, Sir, there is one part of the speech of the right honourable Gentleman which I heartily accept. What are the ways of dealing with the poverty in the West of Ireland? One is the way which has been practised so largely in the past, of waiting until the cry of distress of starvation is raised, and until it is proved that the people are in danger of starvation, and then giving charitable doles. A more immoral or more wasteful way of dealing with the condition of things in the west of Ireland it is impossible to conceive. We are, of course, continually subjected to the painful and horrible task of raising this question. But what are we to do? Are we to allow these people to lie down on the roadside and die of starvation? I know that hundreds and thousands of people have existed in Ireland during this year for months on one meal a day, and that less than a moderate sufficiency for a human being. We
      692
      cannot see this kind of thing going on without raising a protest. We are told when we repeat the stories sent to us from, the west of Ireland by people who live on the spot, that we are exaggerating and giving currency to exaggerations. Sir, I quite agree with the right honourable Gentleman that there never is a case of distress in Ireland or in any other country where you have not a great deal of exaggeration. It is impossible for any man—I have often felt it myself—to live in the midst of starvation or distress verging on starvation without indulging in exaggeration. I admit myself that I should be disposed to exaggerate even for the purpose of arousing public opinion when you see this suffering round you. You cannot remain absolutely calm and critical and cool, and you are very apt to overdraw the picture. And, of course, the poor people who live on the spot very often exaggerate, for wherever you have distress you have demoralisation. I have myself been a witness of the fact that the people who are the least distressed often make the loudest outcry. I have over and over again, in my own experience, found that the people who make no complaint whatever, and who are too proud to make complaint, are brought to the very verge of actual death from starvation before anyone knows that they are in distress; whereas the men who are not in extreme want shout, and clamour, and complain. These things will always occur wherever you have extreme distress. Demoralisation is widespread wherever you have this system of temporary relief. Now, Sir, there, is another method which has been to a great extent ignored in Ireland, and that is the endeavour to apply steady, permanent relief which will not stop at the moment when the people come to die of starvation, but will go on from year to year for the purpose of removing the people altogether from this danger and putting the population in a position to support themselves. That is the policy for which we plead, that is the administration of relief for which we plead; and there cannot be the slightest doubt that if all the money which has been paid away in Ireland for temporary relief had been wisely administered with that view from the beginning we should not have famine or such distress as prevails in

      693
      Ireland at the present day. The right honourable Gentleman alluded to the labours carried on in the administration of the rebel of distress to a certain extent by the Congested Districts Board in the last two years, and he spoke of the introduction of new industries. Sir, something may have been done towards the introduction of new industries, but I have watched a large portion of the Congested Districts Board's labours very carefully, and, while I know that a good, deal has been done in certain spots, it is but a drop in the ocean, and it is not the way in which to get the best value or the best return for your money, because I have always noticed that in dealing with populations like those of the west of Ireland, what you have got to do is, as far as possible, to follow nature. Whenever you attempt to plant anything amongst the people which is artificial, and about which there is a great deal in the newspapers, and glowing descriptions of the wonderful good that has been done, it is still an exotic, and does not at all give promise of that permanence which would arise from some scheme having for its object to enable the people to do that which they are accustomed to do, and which they are entitled to do. That, I think, is the guiding principle which should govern the administration of relief in Ireland, and the right honourable Gentleman appears to have been entirely converted to, or rather to have adopted, that view in regard to the people in the west of Ireland. These unfortunate people are industrious and hard-working. They understand thoroughly one branch of human industry, and if you would take these people to-morrow, and put them— I will not say on rich land, but on poor land, giving them aid to a fair and reasonable amount, you would be perfectly astonished as to how they would create a little capital out of that soil, and in a very short time become so independent as to save the lives of the population. It is only by opening to these people an opportunity for exercising the industry which they know, and which they have practised for generations, that you can restore their prosperity. It is perfectly useless to do otherwise, and I confess that I have listened with some disappointment to the statement of the
      694
      First Lord of the Treasury, which was otherwise so sympathetic, when he spoke of gradually and slowly improving the condition of things. I know it will take some time, but if the Government would apply themselves vigorously and actively to the task, it would not be at all as long a process as the right honourable Gentleman seems to imagine. It has only, up to the present time, been done experimentally in one or two cases under the Congested Districts Board, and the result of those experiments has been astonishing. Whenever the cry of distress has been raised before in Ireland, those of us who have had the misfortune of being obliged to study the question, knew perfectly well that the first cry would come from the islands of Clare and Achill, and that even where there might be less distress than in the rest of the country, they would be almost the first and foremost to cry out that they were starving. They were tortured by all kinds of expeditions by the police to levy the biggest rents in those islands, and the distress and suffering in those islands was almost perennial. But now the land has been distributed amongst the people, and in this year of acute distress we did not get a single application for relief from those islands. Well, Sir, there you have an example, as well as on the French estate in the county of Galway, where a similar course was adopted of the one effectual method by which, whenever public money is available, and can be used, of putting an end for ever to the recurring and miserable cry of distress, and this demoralisation of the people. Sir, there is one other consideration which I would venture to press upon the House before I sit down. The First Lord of the Treasury, in his speech, asked the House a question as to why it was that the House of Commons was called upon, and felt compelled to make special provision and special grants for this recurring distress in Ireland, when no such thing was done for the rest of the United Kingdom. He gave an excellent reason, to which I have already alluded, why the population, which was at such a dead level of poverty, could not be charged with the relief of any part of the locality. But, Sir, there is another reason which I have heard given in this House before, but to

      695
      which the right honourable Gentleman did not allude on the present occasion—a reason which, in my opinion, is even more powerful than the reason he gave, and it is this. He has himself frequently admitted, and I think the Chief Secretary also, that this Government—I do not mean the present Government, but the Government of Great Britain—has a responsibility for this state of things in Ireland which imposes upon it an obligation to rescue the people from the position in which they are placed. It cannot be said that this poverty-stricken people are in anything like the same position as people in any other part of the United Kingdom. Their ancestors were driven into the position by the operation of hateful laws which were directed against that unfortunate people. The expression "To hell or Connaught" has passed into the history of our country, and these populations have been the victims of dreadful civil wars and proscriptions, and sweeping evictions, such as have horrified all who have read of them in the history of Ireland. It is not only because they are sunk in this terrible condition of poverty, from which they are, by the admission of the Government, utterly unable to extricate themselves, but it is because they were sunk into that position by the action of the Government of this United Kingdom that the obligation in all justice and honour is thrown upon the Government of this great and wealthy Empire to come to the rescue of this people and place them in a position where they shall become a self-respecting and self-supporting population, instead of being in the wretched state of perpetual mendicancy under which they now exist.
      MR. LOUGH: I think, Mr. Speaker, that no one will deny out right to say a few words on the important subject raised by the speech of my honourable Friend. I have no intention, Sir, of going outside in any way the limits which you have properly imposed upon the discussion; but there is on suggestion I should like to make to the House. The Report of Supply we are now considering includes the Vote for the Local Government Board of Ireland. Now, I think we have a serious complaint to make of the Local Government Board
      696
      in connection with this matter in one respect, and it is in respect of the fact that we do not get sufficient information from it about this subject. Now, what will happen, Mr. Speaker? Relief will be distributed, and then the same thing will occur again, as has happened many times during the last 80 years. Now, Sir, is the Local Government Board going to allow the incident to close in that way without any addition to what I will admit, if you like, for the sake of argument, is the useful help they have given up to the present time, or are they prepared to give no further guidance in regard to the problem with which we have to deal for supplying us with more information? It is said that the suffering in the present emergency has been exaggerated, yet we know that something must be done, and we require more information to enable us to guard against a recurrence of such distress in the future. Now, let me suggest one other point upon which I think information is required. We have got a Congested Districts Board in Ireland, but we want to know whether the area of suffering caused by these famines is extending. There is now no place where we can get this information. A few years ago one of the most distinguished members of the Irish Local Government Board retired after 50 years' service, and the first thing he did attar his retirement was, as a sort of legacy, to write a book on these famines, giving some particulars from which possibly my Honourable Friend got some of the facts he has given on this matter this evening. But why should he have to wait until a private individual who has left the service of the Government gives us such information? Why should not the Government examine into the particular crisis we have had now and tell us to how it differs from previous ones, and whether it has been worse or better, and exactly what area it has covered? The First Lord of the Treasury, in his sympathetic speech—wihieh I think adds another obligation to those he has placed Ireland under by has conduct of business in this House during the present Session—states that there had been distress in Lancashire and other parts of the United Kingdom just like that in Ireland. In that I do not think he is quite accurate. There is no distress like it in any other

      697
      part of the United Kingdom. It occurs in Ireland with, persistent regularity, but what has been referred to as the Lancashire famine results from trade disturbances caused by the American War, and if there be distress in a great industrial centre in South Wales it is the direct consequence of circumstances of an entirely different character, and the cause of which is well known. If distress arises in industrial communities, it is due to fluctuations in trade, but in Ireland there are no such fluctuations, or, at any rate, they are very slight. Of course, it may be that in a wet season the potato crop fails, or some other crop fails, but we do not find that a short crop in any other country has flung the people into famine, and caused the Parliament to take such a step as we are called upon to take here. No, Sir, broadly speaking there are no fluctuations in Ireland which will account for these frequent outbreaks of distress. A fluctuation, amounting to only 5 per cent. of the whole agricultural produce of Ireland, should not bring the people to the starvation point as it does. Why is this? I say that the Irish Local Government Board should give us assistance in the form of fuller information. The Local Government Board has never given us such help. It has been in existence now in Ireland for 50 years, ever since the poor law system was established. These famines have been no better since the poor law was established than they were before, and we cannot get full and true information about them. I should have wished to put a question on this matter to the First Lord of the Treasury if he were present, but perhaps the Attorney General may be able to give us a promise—and I am quite sure that he could do so without overstepping the limits of prudence—that the Local Government Board will prepare an elaborate Report upon all the facts connected with the present distress. There is one curious fact that I should like to have inquired into. My honourable Friend has stated that about £100,000 has been spent, partly by this House, and partly by local representative bodies, in relieving distress—£50,000 by this House, and over £50,000 from other sources, making £100,000 altogether. Well, now, I should like to see
      698
      if that £100,000 was spent, as probably it was spent, on ordinary food and stimulants in Ireland. If so, three-fourths of the amount went straight into the Treasury as clean as if it had been handed over by this House to the British Treasury, and the amount actually spent would be reduced to £25,000. That is a matter that might well be inquired into by the Local Government Board. They might ascertain what has been done with the money, and if it has been so spent the fact will throw a light upon the whole question. We ought to get information from the Local Government Board as to the areas in which this distress has existed, and as to whether those areas are widening or not, and as to the classes of people who suffer. I believe that in that way valuable material might be gathered for the guidance of this House in dealing with the question.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad indeed that we are precluded by the tone of the Debate from going back to some of the vexed and rather aggravating questions that have divided those on these benches from the Government during the course of the Session. I think myself that the First Lord of the Treasury, in one of the statements he made, gave a justification for the attitude we took up in regard to certain proposals in the Local Government Bill as to these distressed districts, because he declared, and nobody has denied the statement, that the distress of the people in those districts was largely aggravated by the fact that the districts as a whole were so poor as to leave no residue of the population in a position to assist the most distressed section of the people. Sir, that is our position. Our position with regard to that part of the Bill was that it required the poor to support the poor to an extent that could not properly be placed upon them. I think the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury was one very well calculated to inspire a great deal of hope with regard to the future. My honourable Friend the Member for East Mayo alluded to the statement of a rather controversial character of the First Lord of the Treasury, that the solution of this problem must be of a slow and gradual nature.

      699
      I do not quite place the same interpretation on that statement of the First Lord of the Treasury as my honourable Friend. I should imagine in the first place that the First Lord of the Treasury is not in a position according to the ruling of the Chair, or, indeed, according to the necessities of his office, to make anything like a large promise with regard to the future proposals of the Government. I can quite understand why the First Lord should be cautious, and even modest, in any promises as to future policy that he may give to the House upon this occasion, and therefore I read and interpret the statement of the First Lord in the light of those limitations. My interpretation of what the First Lord meant was that this social problem is large and, to a certain extent, difficult, and that a considerable portion of time, whatever the result may be, would unquestionably be required to arrive at a satisfactory and final solution. I assume that that would be the case even if the First Lord of the Treasury were to bring in large and heroic legislation on the subject. Now, Sir, I wish at once to say that I do not think it would be of the least use for the Government to approach this question in anything like a niggardly or half-hearted spirit. It is a large problem, it is a deep problem, it is a growing problem. At the same time the remedy is not far to seek, and is not very difficult. If the Government would only make up their minds that it was their function and their mission to solve this problem before they left office, I am perfectly sure that the Government would solve the problem. Well, now, I think that it is the mission and the duty of the Government to solve this problem. They have a very large majority, they have very great power, both in this House and in another place, and they cannot apprehend on a question of this kind any resistance from any part of the Opposition. They are certainly in a better position to deal with these problems of Irish life than any Government which has existed before them, and I would almost say than any Government which is likely to exist after them. Furthermore, Sir, this Government is bound to live up to its profession. I will not at this period
      700
      of the Session cast any doubt upon their desire in good faith to fulfil their promises, but this Government is bound to show that this Parliament can govern Ireland as well, as wisely, and as sympathetically as an Irish Parliament maintained by the people of Ireland themselves would do; and therefore it is their duty to take up these problems one offer another and do their best to solve them. Now, Sir, this question of the western population of Ireland is one in which everybody born west of the Channel, as I was myself, must feel a very deep interest. I was brought up in close contiguity to the population of those districts, and I can speak upon the question from some personal knowledge. I remember distinctly a fact which, when I was only a boy, made a great impression upon my mind and brought home to me the position of these people. There was a sailing-boat going across the bay of Galway, which was manned by two or three men. They had before them a difficult and laborious task, and I found that the entire food supply with which they had provided themselves for this hard day's work was a small bowl of potatoes. Those people were able to do that very hard work and still to be perfectly happy on this very small bowl of potatoes. Well, Sir, that brought home to my mind, young as I was, how small the provision of this people must be, and yet how energetic and contented they could be under that small subsistence. Well, Sir, later on I made the acquaintance of a medical man who was on duty in that part of the country, and medical men, as we all know, are brought more closely into relation with the real lives of the poor than the members of any other profession, with, perhaps, the exception of ministers of religion, and I remember very well that this young friend of mine, who- had just taken his degree, was appointed to one of these congested districts in Connemara, and a fact which is still shocking in my recollection is that he told me that it frequently happened that a woman in her confinement had only a bed of seaweed to lie upon. These are facts that should enable us to realise the condition of affairs. In fact, there has long ceased to be any dispute with regard to the facts. There may be

      701
      doubts as to whether the distress has reached an exceptionally high point, but there is no conflicting opinion between us as to the fact that the distress in these districts is chronic and requires very serious consideration. Now, I interpret the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury as meaning that, in his mind, the case has been established, and that a remedy must be brought in by the Government; that that remedy must take, as one of its shapes, the enlargement of the small holdings upon which these people are compelled to live; and that, so far as he is concerned, any attempt to solve the problem on these lines will meet with his fullest sympathy and support. I do not understand that as meaning that the First Lord of the Treasury suggests that a Measure of this kind should be brought in by a private Member, but that, according to him, this is the duty of the Government, and a duty which the Government are determined and ready to carry out. For these reasons I welcome the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury as holding out some hope for the future. I should have been glad if he had been able to speak in more specific terms. I think my honourable Friend who introduced this question, and many men in Ireland, and elsewhere, who have sacrificed themselves in this movement for so long a time, have at least the satisfaction of knowing that the conditions of the problem are now admitted, and that there is practically a unanimous agreement in the House as to the necessity of an early remedy.
      MAJOR JAMESON: I do not intend to keep the House any time, but I should like to say a few words upon the subject of relief of this distress, and also on the subject of obtaining information which can be placed before this House. I do not think that the last answer I had from the Chief Secretary, who I am sorry is not here, was quite satisfactory. I appealed very strongly to the Chief Secretary on behalf of the West of Ireland, and on behalf of West Clare. I pointed out to him the terrible distress that prevailed. I pointed out to him that I had seen it myself, that I had personally driven from house to house for miles and miles, and seen the deep distress, the terrible poverty, pressing upon
      702
      all sides. When I appealed to the right honourable Gentleman for special relief I was told that they had no means by which to gauge the extent of this distress. What I would ask the Government to do is to send down to the place itself, and to go to the people who have some position there, and live there, and then you would very soon see where that distress is, and how it can be remedied. I myself was one of a deputation that went to the Chief Secretary last February, and we laid before him the way in which we considered the distress in that part of Ireland should be remedied. We had a very nice reception. We had deep sympathy, but nothing else. No man appreciates more than I do the sympathetic speech of the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. The only thing that I am anxious about is that it should not end there; and I think the sooner his sympathy is allowed to bear some practical fruits the better it will be for this country and better for Ireland. The Chief Secretary has always taken the view that there is great difficulty in relieving this distress, because you have two forms of it—chronic poverty and temporary distress. I think every Member of the House will acknowledge that where chronic poverty reigns temporary distress will be more accentuated there than anywhere else, and for years there has been more or less of this chronic poverty in certain parts of Ireland. What I complain of is that no measures have been taken to relieve this distress permanently. We have always asked the Government to give some permanent relief, and no doles of £50,000 a year are of the slightest use. You will never have happiness where you have starvation. I think that is a maxim that everyone here will agree with. There is another way in which we might relieve distress—I have mentioned this before, and I know I shall be laughed at—by teaching the people a system of cooking, in order that the little they have may be-made the most of. We have got an instance in the last twenty-four hours; one of the greatest citizens of London, and I may say he is an Irishman, has given £100,000 in order that the working classes of this great town of yours shall be better fed. No one is more delighted than I am, but I do hope that

      703
      rich man will recollect, after all, the country of his birth, and that he will allow that fund which is now being made up to help in teaching these poor peasants how they can best apply the poor food—and God knows it is poor enough—they have at present. Unless the Government will spend money, in order that the industries of the distressed part of Ireland shall be made payable, they will never do any good. What I do complain of is that when representatives of the people sent here bring up this matter their opinion is systematically ignored. I trust and hope, after what the First Lord has said to-day, that he will show that his sympathy is no barren thing, and that this great and rich country will help us. You owe it to us and we ask you to do it. What we ask for is really our right. It must be to your advantage that these different places in Ireland where chronic poverty has reigned for years should have a fresh remedy applied to them by this country, and that a proper Vote should be given for this purpose. I appeal to the right honourable Gentleman to give us the full and complete Return we ask for, in order that we may, in an orderly and business-like manner, lay before the House the best way in which remedies can be applied in order to relieve our people from want, and make these dark and black spots in our country happy and prosperous.
      Resolution agreed to.
      6. "That a sum, not exceeding £26,119, 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, 1899, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works in Ireland."
      Agreed to.

      CLASS III.
      7. "That a sum, not exceeding £77,151, 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, 1899, for the Salaries, Allowances, Expenses, and Pensions of various County Court Officers, of Commissioners, and of Magistrates in Ireland, and the Expenses of Revision."
      8. "That a sum, not exceeding £67,953, (including a Supplementary sum of £1,500), 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, 1899,
      704
      for the Salaries and Expenses of the Commissioner of Police, the Police Courts, and the Metropolitan Police Establishment of Dublin."
      9. "That a sum, not exceeding £754,557, 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, 1899, for the Expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary."
      MR. DILLON: I rise to protest against the action of the Government in taking this Vote on this very last night. It ought to have been put down at a reasonable date in the Session, in order that we might have had an opportunity of fairly and adequately discussing it. When this new rule—and the more I see of its operation the less I like it—was introduced, I think, two years ago, I remember that I pointed out to the Government that it would probably be used for the purpose of closuring and preventing discussion on such subjects as this, and the Government declared that nothing could be imagined more objectionable or further from their idea; and they had no idea of doing anything of the sort. I recollect upon that occasion the right honourable Gentleman the Member for the Bodmin Division of Cornwall, who is an authority that we all recognise on the practice of the House, stated that it was specially essential that, as regards Irish affairs, the Executive Government should give the Irish Members ample and fair and reasonable opportunity of discussing, at all events, the important Votes, and he gave reasons which I think commended themselves generally to the House. I do not call bringing on a Vote like this on the last day, under closure, and then bringing up the Report to-day, in any way giving a fair opportunity to the Irish Members of discussing the Vote. The Government have deliberately carried the Irish Constabulary Vote without giving us any opportunity whatever of discussing it. I do not intend for a single moment to attempt a general discussion on the Constabulary Vote at this period of the Session, because it would be an entirely absurd and impossible task. I rise now simply for the purpose of putting a few questions to the Attorney General in reference to a case which has attracted an immense amount of attention, and which, in its extra-

      705
      ordinary character, and in its bearings, is one of the most interesting that has ever been disclosed in connection with the administration of justice in Ireland; that is, the case against Sergeant Sullivan at Mulrany. I know that the case is sub judice, and that it would be extremely improper for me to express any opinion or use any language which might, be taken as assuming that the charges were true. I do not assume anything of the kind. All that can be said is that true bills have been found by the Grand Jury. I shall endeavour to confine my observations upon the case exclusively and particularly to the action of the Executive Government in relation to it, and I shall endeavour as far as possible to keep clear from prejudicing the case, or prejudicing the trial. What I complain of is this: Sergeant Sullivan was charged by a private prosecutor, as the right honourable Gentleman knows, with three crimes, any one of which was of the most terrible character. He was charged first with forgery, secondly with incitement to felony, and thirdly, I think, with criminal libel. These charges were based on a letter which was written to a young lad in the neighbourhood, inviting him at a certain hour of the night to "moonlight" a certain man. Now, this letter was signed by a well-known political leader in the neighbourhood, and the charge is that the letter was written and the name of that political leader forged by the police sergeant; that having invited this young man to commit the outrage he then ambushed himself to catch him in the act. On those charges a true bill has been found. But that is not all. Now, Sir, I come to the worst part of the complaint I have to make, which is against the Executive Government. I think everyone will agree.—I think I shall carry the whole Committee with me in saying this—that, under the circumstances I have described, it ought to be the zealous care of the Executive Government in Ireland to remove even the breath of suspicion from their action with regard to a police sergeant charged with a serious crime. But the Executive Government did not do that. The first thing I complain, of is that, immediately after the true bills were found, the sergeant was bailed in court by the district inspector and the county inspector. I
      706
      say that was a very improper proceeding, because the witnesses who had to come into court and give evidence were poor people resident in the district—resident under the thumb of the district, inspector of police. How can you expect poor men, knowing the system of Ireland, to feel any confidence in the administration of justice when they see the local police officer coming forward in court to bail out a police officer in regard to whom a true bill has been found on a serious crime. The next complaint I have to make is of a much more serious and grave character, because, if my information is correct, Sergeant Sullivan, having been bailed out by the district inspector, went back to Mulrany, and took police charge of the very district in which it was alleged he committed the crimes, and in which the witnesses were resident. And certain incidents have since occurred in that district of a most sinister character, I did not bring with me the notes of the case this afternoon, because I did not know the opportunity would arise of raising the case; but if I recollect right, some days after a true bill was found against him Sergeant Sullivan was sent as an escort in charge of the father of the chief witness against him, who was prosecuted by another policeman on what I am informed was a trumped up charge, and sentenced by Lord Sligo and the bench of local magistrates to a month's imprisonment with hard labour. After the father was taken in charge and carried off to gaol, I am informed that this young man, the witness, came and endeavoured to speak to his father, but this policeman, who is lying under these terrible charges, was in full possession of power and authority, and refused permission to allow him to address a few words to his father. Now, if that is true, it arouses in the minds of the public, and in our minds, a very grave suspicion that a system of gross intimidation is being carried on against those poor witnesses. Then it was alleged that a brother policeman, whose name is mixed up with Sergeant Sullivan's—a young man named Constable Brennan, I think—had gone wrong, and illegally gone around and illegally entered the houses of some of the witnesses and relatives, and searched them without a warrant, notwithstanding the protests of the occupants. That is a

      707
      very preposterous circumstance, and is calculated to intimidate witnesses and impede the administration of justice; and it is alleged positively that Sergeant Sullivan himself, when in Castlebar awaiting his trial, boasted that they might do what they liked, but that ha would have authority in Mulrany still. Sir, I put a question to the Attorney General a short time ago on this point, and he told us that Sergeant Sullivan had been suspended from police duty, I think on the 20th July; but if my memory is correct that is a considerable period after the true bills had been found. I remember now—the true bills were found long before the 20th July. I think he was in authority for some time after the true bill was found. But, be that as it may, the impression, according to the information I have, in the district amongst the people was that he was in full authority, and I do hold that a policeman, who held a position of authority, such as that of a sergeant in a police barracks, and who is going to be tried on these terrible charges, ought not to remain in the district. Men are moved about continually from one quarter of the country, to another. I hold that a policeman ought not to be, even apparently, on duty in a district while that charge is hanging over his head. If he is tried and acquitted, then I presume he will return to duty; but a man lying under a criminal charge, a charge of an odious character, ought not to be in a position of even apparent authority, particularly in the district where the witnesses against him actually reside. I put this to the right honourable Gentleman: supposing that he was suspended from police duty, but resides in barracks, how will you persuade the unfortunate people in the district—the poor people who are under the thumb of the police to an extent entirely unknown in this country—that this Sergeant Sullivan, who has been in the habit of exercising authority, although he may be nominally suspended from authority, will not exercise it in fact? I am positively assured that within a few days after the evidence had been given another of the witnesses was summoned by the police of Mulrany for a technical offence—that is to say, allowing his horse to go down to drink at a stream, a thing he had been doing for six or seven
      708
      years without any interference, without any reference to any one of the small by-laws which no one thinks of enforcing. Immediately after he gave evidence against the sergeant he was summoned and a considerable fine inflicted. These are matters which I put before the right honourable Gentleman according to the information sent to me. I think they are matters requiring his careful consideration. I confidently hope that he will see that not only are the witnesses uninterfered with, not only will he see that Sergeant Sullivan has no power or authority on the spot until his trial has been concluded, but that he will see it is made manifest, to the people that he has no authority, and that the Government are determined to see fair play done in this matter, and that he will see no incidents occur which are calculated to impress the minds of the people with the idea that the Government are backing up the action of the police, or with the idea that the prosecution would not be conducted in the same spirit as against an ordinary member of the public. I think I am entitled to demand that from the right honourable Gentleman. I urge that it is not prudent, even in the interests of the Government—I speak entirely in the interests of the Government and of the police themselves—that a man lying under such charges as these, which have been alleged against Sergeant Sullivan, should be bailed out by his own commanding officer and by the county inspector of Mayo.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,: The first point complained of by the honourable Member was that this Vote had been postponed to so late a period of the Session. I think the honourable Member will see that the number of days given to Irish Supply was very ample.
      MR. DILLON: I took that very point Three days were devoted last year and the year before, and I complained of it repeatedly, through the proper channels, and this year we are put off with two.
      MR. ATKINSON: Three days.
      MR. DAVITT: Four days were allowed last year.
      MR. ATKINSON: The Government say that, if there is any general desire expressed that any particular class of Supply should be taken on one night more than another, all arrangements possible will be made to meet that desire. Now, the honourable Member was anxious to say nothing that would prejudice either the prosecution or the accused in this case of Sergeant Sullivan. I regret that the honourable Member did not more closely adhere to the rule he laid down for himself in the beginning of his remarks. He has dealt with two matters in reference to this man Sullivan—first, as regards the man himself, and then as regards the conduct of his police officers in giving bail. He seemed to suggest that a system of petty persecution and intimidation is resorted to by his fellow policemen at the station to which he was formerly attached. I regret extremely that he did not give me soma notice that the second charge was about to be made. It takes me entirely by surprise. I am not furnished with any information at the present moment which enables me to deal with it, inasmuch as until the honourable Member mentioned it I never heard it suggested. With regard to the other parts of the case, my recollection is that the very moment true bills were found against Sullivan, and a communication was made to the Inspector General of that result, Sullivan was relieved from duty, not suspended, because suspension carries with it a kind of punishment, and would suggest a kind of pronouncement on the case. He was most properly relieved from duty, as while the charge remains open, and he is not cleared from the charge, he is unfit for duty. I recognise this as strongly as the honourable Member. I think it was rather unfortunate that it was not insisted that he should leave the barracks Now, my recollection of the incident is that I at once communicated with the authorities with regard to the matter. I believe the man was arrested, but although Sergeant Sullivan marched with the escort he had no sort of communication, either direct or indirect, with the prisoner, nor did he take command of the escort. With regard to the two other officers, I know of no person better
      710
      calculated to prevent the man from running away than the policeman in the barracks, who, if the man did run away, would be responsible. As for the fact that two of his brother policemen became sureties for him, I am unable to see any impropriety in that, and nothing could be more extraordinary and absurd than to suggest that this was done to intimidate the Irish peasantry. With regard to the other suggestion of the honourable Member, I regret that he did not make some inquiry before he stated that without any legal warrant or authority the officer began to search.
      MR. DILLON: I can only speak from what information was placed in my own hands. The reason I did not give the right honourable Gentleman notice of this matter is that I had no chance of doing so. I understand that this search was made without a warrant, and that the men remonstrated.
      MR. ATKINSON: I can scarcely believe it possible that——
      MR. DILLON: Of course I accept the explanation of the right honourable Gentleman.
      MR. ATKINSON: The honourable Gentleman asks that everything which is just and right should be dome to bring this man to justice, so that he may be convicted if guilty. Now, I can, with the greatest pleasure, give him that assurance in this case as I could in every other case, that everything will be done to do justice to both sides.
      MR. DILLON: I only ask that he should be prosecuted like other people.
      MR. ATKINSON: Nothing will be done to prejudice him unjustly. That assurance I give with the greatest possible pleasure.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I have not the smallest suspicion that the right honourable Gentleman will carry out the assurance which he to the House. At the same time I think I may say that I am justified in being a little shocked at the statement of the right honourable Gentleman. Now, what has happened?

      711
      There is a strong class feeling going on in this district. Now, I will say nothing whatever as to whether this man is guilty or innocent, for he has to be tried by a jury of his own countrymen, and it would be most unfair to do so. The man is charged with a very serious offence—that of abusing his position as a guardian of the peace by exciting to outrage and to throw the charge of that excitement upon other people. Now, that is a very serious charge, and you could not have a more serious charge against a guardian of the peace. Now, this man has not been removed from duty, and to all intents and purposes this officer is still placed in the same position of confidence and authority as he was before he was charged. The Attorney General says that there is nothing extraordinary or out of the way in his superior officers going bail for him. Now, I am not going to appeal very strongly on that point, but I do say that the general inference drawn by the public with regard to bail is that the man who gives the bail is in sympathy with the man for whom he gives the bail. In any case, where the conduct of the police is called into question I think it is most unfortunate that anything should be done which will indicate that whatever a policeman might do he can always rely upon the support and sympathy of his superiors. Therefore I think that the action of these superior officers in giving bail in this case was most unfortunate. Now, I am not going to lay as much stress upon that fact as upon some others. The facts are these. I start from the point of view in the consideration of this question that there is class feeling in this particular district at this very moment. There is a bench of magistrates, and they belong practically to one class, and human nature would be superhuman and it would be blind to obvious facts if it did not infer that the bench of magistrates had very strong sympathy with one of the parties. Now, what happens? Why, the father of one of the chief witnesses against this constable is brought up on a, charge, and he is brought up before the magistrates consisting of members of one class in this county. I understand that he was convicted. I do say that to be charged and convicted before a certain kind of bench of members of one class
      712
      in a county would not be regarded in this country as being fair. But I pass that by. The man was convicted, and then as he is being brought to gaol one of the men who form his escort is the very sergeant of police who is going to be put on his trial, and against whom the son of the prisoner is a witness. Now, Mr. speaker, I ask would such a state of things be possible or tolerated for one hour in this country? Here you have this officer charged escorting this person, and how can you expect the inhabitants of this district to have confidence in the administration of justice when at this very moment their enemies hold the balance of power in the magisterial court? They feel that there is no justice for them, but at least they have got the Attorney General to act and to take up their cause in so far as to put this sergeant on trial at the initiative and expense of the Government, and so far so good. Now, what happens? This man whom the Attorney General is going to prosecute is seen in his old position of sergeant, farming part of an escort taking to gaol the father of the chief witness against him. The Attorney General calls it unfortunate, but I call it shameful. I call it a flagitious travesty of all the rules of order and decency which should govern the conduct of such proceedings. I am very sorry indeed for the House, for I should have liked the speech of the right honourable Gentleman, able and frank as it was, to have been heard by every Unionist Member of this House, because I think nothing would bring home to the minds of Unionist Members more forcibly the feeling of incurable and deep-rooted suspicion which the Irish people, have of the administration of the law in Ireland.
      Question put.
      Vote agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put—
      10. "That a sum, not exceeding £69,096, 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, 1899, for the Expenses of the General Prisons Board in Ireland, and of the Prisons under their control, and of the Registration of Habitual Criminals."
      Agreed to.
      11. "That a sum, not exceeding £54,936, 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, 1899, for the Expenses of Reformatory and industrial Schools in Ireland."
      12. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,955, 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, 1899, for the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics in the Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Ireland."
      Agreed to.

      CLASS I.
      13. "That a sum, not exceeding £129,672, 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, 1899, for the Survey of the United Kingdom, and for minor services connected therewith."
      Amendment proposed—
      "To leave out '129,672,' and insert '£129,572.'"—(Sir Barrington Simeon.)
      SIR J. S. BARRINGTON SIMEON: I beg to move the reduction of this Vote by £100, and I do so because I feel that the Government are making a great mistake which I feel will not contribute to their popularity, and which I am sure will not contribute to their credit. I think they are making a mistake which will cause a great injustice to a very hard-working class of people who were originally led to expect pensions when they left the service. Up to the year 1859 the ordnance survey was recognised as a part of the Civil Service, but the Commissioners made out by a decision of theirs on the 9th of September, 1870, that they were not deprived of this under the Superannuation Act. Sir Henry James, when he was Director General of the Ordnance Survey, made an unfortunate prophecy, because he prophesied that by 1880 the work of the Ordnance Survey Department would be finished. That date has been passed by 18 years, and so far from being finished, the work of the Ordnance Survey Depart-
      714
      ment has increased, and no one at the present day would venture to prophecy when it would come to an end. If he did, he would say that it would be about the Day of Judgment when this work was finished. In the year when Sir Henry James prophesied the work would have to come to an end in 1880, the staff consisted of 876 clerks. It was increased in 1870 to 1,008, and in 1880 to 1,114. In 1890 a similar statement was made, and it was said that a large reduction would take place in the staff; instead of that the staff was increased to 1,503 in 1890, and to 1,609 in 1891. It is, therefore, useless to prophecy that the work will finish in any year. The Departmental Committee of 1872 said that the Department would have to be maintained as a permanent Department, and the work was increasing every year, and that is shown by the figures with regard to the sales of maps. In 1894–95 the sale of maps produced £14,903, in 1895–96 £15,497, and in 1896–97 it rose to £17,715. I do not think, after quoting those figures, that I need trouble the Committee as to whether the staff is permanent or not, but I must remind the House that in 1894 temporary civil servants, who had joined the service between September 29th, 1870, and January 4th, 1873, were placed on the permanent establishment. It was then said that the fact that it was no longer a pensionable Department was not known to the people who joined the service before September 29th, 1870, but many men have joined since then who had no idea whatever that they were not joining a pensionable Department, and a question was asked of Colonel South, a gentleman very high up in his day in the Ordnance Survey, as to how people were to know when joining the Department that it was not a pensionable one, and his answer was that as that statement was made in a Parliamentary Paper, anybody could obtain the information. Now, how are boys of 14 years of age to get the information? I do not know that even a son of a Member of this House would know how to obtain a Parliamentary Paper if his father did not tell him the way, and yet these poor boys who join this Department at the age of 14 are to be supposed to be able to

      715
      obtain them for themselves, and that is the only information which is obtainable. Now, here the question of salary comes in, and I daresay my right honourable Friend will tell me that the scale upon which the salary was based is so high that it is not possible to give a pension as well. That is a matter of fact, and I should be very sorry to dispute a matter of fact. I am extremely sorry that the scale of salary is so high, because, if it is, it is arrived at on a strange inconsistent basis. The pay at which these clerks can arrive after 15 years' service is 30s. a week, and after 34 years' service 50s. a week. Now, it is very technical work, and has to be done to a great extent under artificial light, and after the clerks reach 45, a great many of them are unfitted for any further work at all. I do not think you can say that the scale upon which the salaries are based is a very generous one when it is remembered that they are men who have had expensive educations, and that they have to keep themselves neat and tidy, and have some position to support. It is absurd to say that the scale is not fixed upon a meagre and stingy basis. It is also fixed upon a very unjust basis, because these "temporary" civil servants do exactly the same work and get exactly the same salary as the civil servants, and it is only because they have the word "temporary" prefixed to civil servants that they are not in as good a position as the permanent staff. The permanent civil servants do the same work, and receive no more and no less for doing it, but because these unfortunate people have the word "temporary" attached to their qualifications they are turned out after 28 years' service, when they would otherwise retire upon a pension. I cannot understand what distinction is made between these two classes of the service. It is said that the wages have been increased since 1870, but it is impossible that they should not have been increased more or less, because every wage has been increased since that time, and the rate of wages everywhere is somewhat higher now than it was 28 years ago. It is equally higher in the case of the permanent staff as it is in the case of the temporary staff. And it must be remembered that the
      716
      wages being higher now than in 1870 really has nothing at all to do with it, and as to the pay having been increased, in many cases, so far from having been increased, it has been reduced since that period, but of the 64 cases to which I have referred only 21 have received a salary of 10s. a day, and yet that sum was held out originally to the people as the sum which they would get. Returning to the Report, we find that the average pay of the staff is 4s. 3¾d. a day, whilst in another Report it is 7s. a day, so that we have the curious anomaly that while Sir Henry James' Report, in 1860 quotes an average payment, of 7s. a day, we have in the Report of Sir Charles Wilson in 1890, to prove that they are better paid than they were in 1860, the quotation of an average of 4s. a day. I have tried to effect an improvement in the position: of the temporary staff many times before, and possibly will have to draw my right honourable Friend's attention to the fact many times again, unless he now takes heart of grace and tries to do justice to these unfortunate people.
      MR. SPEAKER: The question is, Amendment proposed, to leave out £129,672, in order to insert £129,572.
      MR. DILLON: I had no idea that this Vote was to be taken to-night, fortunately for the House, as the subject is one in which I am greatly interested and should have prepared a somewhat long speech. I have had great pleasure in supporting the honourable Member opposite on every previous occasion, and we have succeeded in advancing the matter a considerable stage from the position in which it was two years ago. There is only one question to be considered, and that is whether the Ordnance Survey Department is within measurable distance of being wound up or a great reduction being made in the staff. I have looked into that question, and I find that there is not the slightest foundation for the statements made from time to time that the Ordnance Survey Department will be wound up—statements which my honourable Friend will admit up to the present time have been entirely false. We were told that the survey

      717
      would be finished years ago, instead of which there is at the present a larger staff than there ever was before in my experience. I have received letters of complaint as to the maps. I am told that the six-inch maps, of which the greatest complaint is made, have been made a great number of years, that they are 50 years old. After the Debate in the House a short time ago—last Session—a little spurt was made at the Survey Office, and the three series of maps were produced, but as soon as the effect of the Debate had passed away the deadlock again occurred. There is also another great complaint that the larger scale maps have not been completed for the County of Mayo. I do not know what the experience of other Members of the House may be, but I judge from my own, and if other parts of the country are in the same condition as Mayo is, as shown upon the maps, the whole of the present staff of the Ordnance Survey Department will be dead and buried before the Ordnance Survey is reduced to a condition of being wound up. The duties with which the staff of the Ordnance Survey Department have to deal require great skill, and their pay is not at all proportionate to the qualification required, and it seems to me that there should be a higher wage. There is also the additional grievance that they are, to a certain extent, denied the higher walks of their profession. There is not the same opportunity for promotion in this branch as there is in other branches of the Service. I therefore trust that the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury will during the Recess devote his attention to this deserving case.
      SIR C. DILKE: There is a well-founded grievance against the Ordnance Survey, owing to which a great many honourable Members will vote for the reduction of this Vote unless a very strong reply is made to it. The Ordnance maps of this country are more and more tending to become the basis of all the maps that are used, and the names used upon them are established by usage; yet the names upon them are often incorrect and conceal the real names of the places to which they profess to refer. Anyone who has anything to do with the
      718
      archæologieal proceedings of this country knows that it is to the benefit of the country that the maps should be correct as to the local names. It is impossible to delay the House with details, and all I can do to-day is to ask honourable Members to look at the maps of those particular districts with which they are familiar. I am not talking of the names of towns, or postal districts, or parishes; those are officially recognised names, and nothing can be done to alter them, but in the larger scale maps, where you get the small names upon which the whole archaeology depends, those small unimportant names are distorted and horrible confusion arises. It is that kind of blunder which suggests false derivations, and false circumstances are introduced in the ordnance survey maps. I have looked at the maps of the country, and in all of them I have discovered blunders of the grossest description. In one case, where a name appears three times in the space of a mile, it is spelled in three different ways, each of them suggesting a different derivation. I think, if the President of the Board of Agriculture will look into this matter, he will find that there is a great necessity for seeing that the names are more accurate.
      MR. HANBURY: The responsibility of the Treasury in this matter is limited to the question of pensions. The honourable Member has raised this subject so often, so fearlessly and so persistently, that I am sorry not to look at it from the same point of view. I hope the honourable Member does not think, if we are going to make a mistake in this matter, that we are going to make it without full consideration of the subject. We have had the fullest representation of the civil assistants, who came up to the Treasury, and we discussed the matter very fully, and I have been most anxious to meet, as far as possible, the claims of men who are, I admit, a great credit to the service, if I could see my way to do so. The pensions ceased in 1870, and until 1894 this question of giving pensions to the whole of the temporary staff was never raised. What was raised was this: that although it was true that notice was given by Sir Henry James, the then Director General of the Ordnance Survey Department, that

      719
      all those entering the service after 1870 would enter a non-pensionable service, it was maintained that the notice given was not adequate, and that it did1 not reach those who entered the service between 1870 and 1874. It was said that those who had entered between those dates had had no notice of the change of the policy of the Department, that, therefore, it was only right to assume that it might be supposed by those men who so entered that they had entered a pensionable service, and it was contended that they should be treated as if they had entered before notice was given, before 1870. That question was fought for a long time by the Treasury, and the Treasury only conceded it in 1894. I myself think it was only right that they should be treated as if they had entered the service before 1870. But the announcement was made publicly and clearly to everybody in 1874, that everybody entering after that date was entering a service in which he would not be- able to qualify for a pension. They had clear, proper, and full notice. The question now is put upon a very different basis. It is said that, as a matter of fact, many of the men have now been serving for a long time, and the general opinion is that the service will become a permanent one, because, at the time when the pensions were abolished it was said that the service could not last more than 10 or 15 years, whereas it is pointed out, as a matter of fact, that the service has been a permanent one. It has lasted longer than that period; it has lasted up to the, present time, and is likely to continue. Therefore, these gentlemen say that the service ought to be made a pensionable service. Now, that is an argument which I sweep away as one to which I attach very little importance, because I think it is fully met by the fact that up to 1870 there were pensions. What is the position of the service at the present moment? No doubt there are a great number of men in the service at the present time who have served for some 20 years or more, and who are not entitled to a pension—that is to say, the whole of the men who have joined the service in and since 1874. It is said by those men that they have served for so long a time, and therefore ought to be entitled to a pension. There are, of
      720
      course, a great number of people who have served in other Departments 15 or 16 years, who are entitled to a pension, but they did not become entitled to a pension because they had served that number of years. These men entered under certain conditions, and their salary was fixed upon a basis that they should not become entitled to a pension, and I do not think they ought to come here now and say they are entitled. Then comes the further argument: they say, this service will go on so long that there is every prospect of its becoming permanent, and therefore we ought to retain it on a pensionable basis. Thus we see the whole question is reduced to a very fine point indeed, which is this: Is it going to become a permanent service or not? In one sense it will become so, but the staff at the present moment is 1,600, and I am assured by the Director General that in a dozen years the staff will be reduced to 900. That being so, you will make 900 the pensionable service. I was quite ready to do this, recognising the fact that these men had worked for this number of years. I was quite ready to meet their views as far as I possibly could, but the answer made to me on my inquiry into the matter was, that even with regard to the 900 men who would probably remain on after 10 years, their duties were so interchangeable with the remaining 600 or 700 that it would be utterly impossible to put one's hand on the 900 now, and for the Director General to say "These are the men that I shall retain at the end of 10 years." The whole of the men are performing duties which are so interchangeable that it is absolutely impossible to do so. If that is so, it is obvious that there are no men you can put your finger upon and say, "These are the men we ought to pension." It amounts to this, in fact, that although for certain purposes the service will become permanent, one-half of the work which is done at the present moment will cease in 10 years from now, and half the staff will disappear. Now, the argument of the honourable Member for Mayo, so far as it goes, is perfectly fair. He says that the Director General has said the same thing ever since 1870, but that the work has constantly increased. The answer to that is obvious, and is

      721
      that the service has been taken up on a much greater scale for the purpose of revising and keeping up the maps. It will be a permanent service in 10 years from now, but on a reduced basis. Therefore, carefully as I have gone into the whole matter, I cannot properly see my way to suggest that these 900 men who may remain should be treated as pensionable servants of the State, for the reason I have given, but although the Treasury cannot deal directly with the question of salaries, I am anxious that these men should receive consideration. If the Board of Agriculture is satisfied that any of these men are entitled to higher salaries, and in some oases I admit the evidence points in that direction, I will undertake that their cases shall be considered very carefully.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: Complaints have been made of the backward condition of the Irish survey, but any delay is not due to any lack of energy in carrying out the work, but to the fact that there is an immense amount of detail arising in the course of the undertaking in regard to many of the small holdings. I assure honourable Members that there will be no unnecessary delay, and that there was every desire on the part of the Ordnance Survey Department to complete the work as rapidly as possible. An extra sum of £2,000 is to be spent this year, and we will do our best to bring the survey up to date. With regard to the complaint of the right honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, as to the accuracy of the names, in many places the names have been so very much corrupted that there was the greatest possible difficulty in our ascertaining what was the correct name. Our desire is to produce the most accurate map, and we will endeavour to improve the system if that were possible.
      SIR C. DILKE: I undertake to give oases in which this question of the corruption of the name could not possibly arise.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn, and Resolution agreed to.
      14. "That a sum, not exceeding £136,978, 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, 1899, for the Erection, Repairs, and Maintenance of Public Buildings in Ireland, for the Maintenance of certain Parks and Public Works, and for Drainage Works on the River Shannon."
      15. "That a sum, not exceeding £22,207, 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, 1899, for Payments under 'The Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883,' the Light Railways (Ireland) Acts, 1889 and 1893, and 'The Railways (Ireland) Act, 1896.'"
      16. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £25,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899, for Expenditure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Buildings."
      Agreed to.

      CLASS II.
      17. "That a sum, not exceeding £8,107, 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, 1899, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords."
      MR. LEWIS: About three months ago, when this subject was discussed, it was shown that there was considerable disproportion between the salaries of the House of Lords and those of the House of Commons, and it was also shown that the conditions of payment in the two Houses are different from those which prevail in any other branches of the Civil Service. On that occasion we had an undertaking on, the part of the Government that the whole question should be inquired into. My object in rising now is to ask of the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury what progress has been made with the inquiry, and whether at the beginning of next Session the House will be put into possession of all the information that can reasonably be obtained upon the subject?
      THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Committee has not yet completed its investigations, but it will be re-appointed at the beginning of next Session, and will proceed with the inquiry.
      MR. GEDGE: I wish to call attention to the conduct of some of the officers of the Lord High Chamberlain's Department in the matter of the arrangements for showing visitors over the House. A fortnight ago on Saturday I took some ladies on to the Terrace, and wanted to show them the Library of this House, but was unable to do so, because some order had been issued by some new officer of the Lord High Chamberlain that the Library was no longer open to Members and their friends on Saturdays. No public notice was given of this, and it was exceedingly

      AYES.

      Ambrose, William (Mid'sex)

      Folkestone, Viscount

      Macartney, W. G. Ellison

      Arnold, Alfred

      Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.

      Maclure, Sir John William

      Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

      Garfit, William

      McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

      Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r)

      Gedge, Sydney

      McKillop, James

      Banbury, Frederick George

      Gilliat, John Saunders

      Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

      Bartley, George C. T.

      Godson, Sir Augustus F.

      Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

      Barton, Dunbar Plunket

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward

      Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

      Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

      Goschen, Rt. Hn. G.J. (St. G'rg's)

      Pierpoint, Robert

      Bethell, Commander

      Goschen, G. J. (Sussex)

      Purvis, Robert

      Bond, Edward

      Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

      Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

      Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

      Greville, Captain

      Robinson, Brooke

      Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

      Gull, Sir Cameron

      Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

      Bullard, Sir Harry

      Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

      Sharpe, William Edward T.

      Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

      Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

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

      Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.)

      Heath, James

      Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

      Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

      Henderson, Alexander

      Strauss, Arthur

      Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

      Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)

      Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.

      Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.)

      Hornby, William Henry

      Thornton, Percy M.

      Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

      Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

      Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

      Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

      Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

      Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

      Coghill, Douglas Harry

      Jenkins, Sir John Jones

      Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

      Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

      Lafone, Alfred

      Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

      Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth)

      Lawrence, Sir E. D. (Corn.)

      Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

      Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

      Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

      Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

      Doughty, George

      Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

      Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

      Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

      Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

      Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

      Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

      Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

      Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

      Llewelyn, Sir D. (Swansea)

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

      Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

      Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

      Fisher, William Hayes

      Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverp'l)

      Flannery, Fortescue

      Lowles, John

      NOES.

      Allen, W. (Newc.-und.-Lyme)

      Macaleese, Daniel

      Strachey, Edward

      Barlow, John Emmott

      M'Ghee, Richard

      Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

      Broadhurst, Henry

      Maddison, Fred.

      Williams, John C. (Notts)

      Caldwell, James

      Molloy, Bernard Charles

      Wills, Sir William Henry

      Colville, John

      Pickersgill, Edward Hare

      Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

      Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

      Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

      Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir C.

      Roberts, John B. (Eifion)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Herbert Lewis and Dr. Clark.

      Doogan, P. C.

      Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

      Jameson, Major J. Eustace

      Spicer, Albert

      Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

      Steadman, William Charles

      annoying that we should be met by a policeman and told we could not enter the Library, that the door, in fact, was barred. I only got to the Terrace by the back way, and I think no Peer should have the right to interfere in this way, and say what Members of the House of Commons should do in their own House.
      Motion made, and Question proposed—
      "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolutions."
      The House divided: —Ayes 88; Noes 25.—(Division List No. 306.)
      18. "That a sum, not exceeding £17,005, 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, 1899, for the Salaries and Expenses in the Offices of the House of Commons."
      MR. LEWIS: I wish to raise a question on this Vote which I was unable to do on a previous occasion, and which will be rather important to some Members. There are many Members who would be very glad to have the opportunity of knowing what is going on in the House, and the request I have to make is that the telegraph should be extended to the Library of the House of Commons, in order to enable them to do their work, and at the same time to let them know what is going on in the House.
      MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I think the honourable Member is hardly in order in referring to the telegraph on this Vote. I have an impression that the honourable Gentleman was prevented from alluding to the subject in Committee.
      MR. LEWIS: It was in Committee that I attempted to raise the question, and I was told it did not arise on that Vote.
      DR. CLARK: I know it was raised in Committee, and on the salary of the Commissioner of Works; and the honourable Member was ruled out of order, and the Debate ceased by the decision of the Chairman. He moved once on the salary of the Commissioner of Works, on a question of administration, and again on a question of buildings. I think it would be desirable to have such an instrument in the Library.
      MR. SPEAKER: The matter is one for consideration by the First Commissioner of Works.
      MR. LEWIS: It is only a small and reasonable request.
      Question put.
      Vote agreed to.
      19. "That a sum, not exceeding £59,440, 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, 1899, for the Salaries and Expenses in the Department of Her Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments."
      DR. CLARK: One point I should like to raise is in respect to the administrative function—that is, of determining the salaries to be paid to sheriffs in Scotland. Some of those officers have very important functions to discharge, but they have very inadequate salaries. The scale was fixed in 1863; and circumstances have changed very much since then; and I hope in the case of future appointments the Treasury will begin by paying a higher rate than these officers get at the present time. I may say that the functions performed by the sheriffs substitutes in Scotland are very important. They do all that part of the criminal work which in England is done in quarter sessions or petty sessions. They do all the civil work which in England is done by the county courts and by revising barristers, and they also do the work which in England is done by coroners, as well as a great deal of administrative work, some of them having as many as four or five different areas under their charge. Yet all the salary they receive is some £400 or £500 a year. Several memorials have been addressed to the Treasury with a view to a re-adjustment of these salaries, and I trust, as a result, that the Treasury will see its way to give a minimum to these gentlemen of £700 a year, because it is utterly impossible to get capable men to do the work properly for £500 a year. They are often compelled to live out of the shrievalty where they carry on their work, which, I need hardly say, does not add to the value of their emoluments. They are a very deserving class of men, who devote their entire time to the work of the districts to which they are allotted. I hope the Treasury will take the matter up between now and next Session, when I hope to hear that the Treasury will have seen its way to behave more handsomely.
      MR. HANBURY: I have not had an opportunity of going into this matter thoroughly. The memorial, as far as I have been able to gather, referred only to the sheriff substitute. I agree with the honourable Member opposite that it is better to have a few good men well paid, and the shrievalty, therefore, well served, than to have a great number of men employed with small salaries and with fewer qualifications for their posts; but of course it must follow that, if we are going to give higher salaries to the sheriffs' substitutes, it will be necessary to give them larger areas of labour, in order that their time will be fully occupied. The building of more court-houses would also follow on such a change, which would enable these officials to better deal with their work. In that way possibly a considerable expense might be saved. Speaking generally, I think that a great deal may be done in the direction indicated by the honourable Member.
      MR. LOWLES: I wish to call the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to the position of the abstractor class of clerks. In doing so, I desire to acknowledge the courtesy with which, the right honourable Gentleman has met the requests made by myself and several colleagues on this side of the House and the concessions he has already made for improving their position. There are, however, many men who have seen some 20 or 30 years' service, who are only getting an increment of £2 10s. a year. All they ask is that they should be allowed a yearly increment of £5 upon their initial salary. The total cost to Her Majesty's Treasury would only be something like £1,500 a year, and that is a small sum to adequately recognise the services of a most useful body of men.
      MR. HANBURY: I cannot see how we can make any further change in their position. These men were originally copyists. Some time ago an inquiry was held on the subject, and we recommended that the class of copyists should be swept away. I think these men, considering the work they do, are adequately paid at the present moment. But there is one undoubted grievance which we have tried to remedy. Some of these men are superior to their class, and are
      728
      well fitted to belong to the rank of the second division. They are not men who have passed the examination, but still they are more or less qualified, and in certain oases the heads of the Department have thought it well to promote them to the second division. Under the old Treasury regulations, although these men may have received a salary of £100, if they are promoted to a higher division they have to go back to the smaller salary of £75. I think they ought to continue at their old salaries when they are promoted, and this grievance has now been swept away.
      MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to call attention to what I consider an offence under the Merchant Shipping Act on the part of the P. and O. Company. That Act requires 72 cubic feet of space to be set apart for the accommodation of the crew. I put a question to the President of the Board of Trade in reference to this matter, and the right honourable Gentleman admitted that the P. and 0. Company was not complying with the Act. It has been stated that the Lascars, having been engaged in India,

      729
      come under the Indian Act, which only requires the provision of 36 cubic feet. Sir, I am prepared to contend to-night that these men do not come under the Indian Act. I can well understand why the Indian Act differs from the Imperial Act. When vessels are trading on the coast of India it is not necessary for men to be so much in the forecastle; they sleep on deck. The only time they really require shelter is in wet weather. It is all right when they are trading on the Indian coast, but the vessels I complain of are those trading from India to the United Kingdom. I am told by those who have some knowledge of the subject that when these seamen arrive in port in London they are packed like sardines in a tin. I consider that that is a state of affairs which ought not to exist; and when we are told, as I was yesterday, that the P. and 0. Company are receiving £353,794 a year from the Government for the carriage of mails, I do think it is disgraceful that they should be allowed to break the Act of Parliament in the way they do at the present time. Sir, there is another thing to look at in connection with this matter. The P. and O. Company not only carry passengers, they carry cargo. They have a large number of cargo steamers trading to and from the United Kingdom, and trading on the Indian coast. These vessels enter into competition with the ordinary steamers, and, as a result of receiving this subsidy from the Government, they have been able to drive out of this particular trade a large number of steamers providing employment for seamen. Now, I do not think it is right on the part of the Government to shelter this company in the manner they do. I have put no fewer than eight or nine questions to the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade upon the subject, and up to the present time I have had no satisfactory answer; in fact, from the answers given I can almost imagine that the Board of Trade have had no legal advisers whatever. I do notice, however, that we have had to pay a salary to these gentlemen. Whether it is that they are away on their holidays, and that the Board of Trade is unable to get proper legal advice or not I do not know, but the
      730
      answers I have had are very foolish ones, evidently given by those who do not understand the Merchant Shipping Act, or some persons who want to mislead the House with regard to this matter. Now, Sir, the right honourable Gentleman said very truly in answering a question the other day that it was not possible to give an explanation of the matter in answering a question. Well, I have brought it forward tonight so that he may have an opportunity of making a speech. I think the point is very clear, that the P. and O. Company's ships, being registered in London, come under the Imperial Act, and that every man on board those ships conies under the Imperial, and not the Marine, Act. The Indian Act was passed by the Indian Council and only applies to vessels registered in India and trading on the coast of India; but even allowing for the moment that the P. and O. vessels come under the Indian Act, I find that under another section of the Act that the Imperial Act applies to all seamen, no matter where they are engaged. I believe that was one of the points of the right honourable Gentleman in reply to my question the other day, that as these men were engaged in India, although they were engaged on a British registered vessel, they came under the Indian Act; but if you refer to the Merchant Shipping Act you will find that it does not matter whether the seaman is engaged on a vessel registered in the United Kingdom or not, the Imperial Act applies to all seamen, regardless of the port they may be engaged in. Now, Sir, I think the case is very clear. The Company must comply with the Act of Parliament. They are liable to a penalty of £20 if they offend. The Government know that the company are in the wrong, because they have admitted it. Every British ship is entitled to have deducted from tonnage so much space for accommodation provided for passengers and crew, and because the P. and O. Company have not complied with the section with regard to the accommodation of the crew, the Board of Trade have refused to allow any deductions for the crew's space. That proves that the Board of Trade have taken some action in the matter; but while they refuse to

      731
      allow them any deduction because the P. and O. Company are breaking the Act they won't go a step further, they are afraid to take out a summons and prosecute the Company for a breach of the Act. Now, I want to know if the right honourable Gentleman is prepared tonight to make some promise that the Act shall be enforced. Hitherto we have been told, "We are inquiring into the matter," or "There is some doubt as to whether the Indian. Act applies." Then we are informed that the Department have dug up some old Act of George IV., which is brought to the rescue as a kind of excuse. Well, I have gone all through that Act this afternoon, and I do not think it applies at all. I do hope the Government will do justice in this matter, because it is a serious injury to the seamen employed in this country. The Royal Commission on Labour recommended that the accommodation for crews on board ship should be increased from 72 cubic feet to 120. Well, that has not been done, but I believe the majority of shipowners in this country are giving over 72 feet. They have to compete with a wealthy company like the P. and O., who receive £1,000 every day from the Government for carrying the mails. That is not the consideration they get from the Admiralty; I believe that also is a very considerable amount. Altogether I think the amount the company receive cannot be less than £100,000 a year. They are driving other small shipowners out of the Indian trade, and they are being assisted by the authorities. Now, I want some explanation as to why the company are allowed to do this. There can be no excuse, and I intend to press the question until I get a satisfactory answer.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: I can only answer the honourable Gentleman upon the information I have gathered since I have been able to answer questions on behalf of my right honourable Friend the President of the Board of Trade during his absence from the House on account of indisposition. If, however, the honourable Member had given me notice that he intended to raise the subject, I would have done my best to put myself in possession of the general facts of the
      732
      case, in order to give him a fuller answer than I am able to do under the existing circumstances.
      MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I have been giving notice.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: The honourable Gentleman has asked questions which have been answered. With regard to this particular case I am convinced, from the information I have received from the Board of Trade, and from the conversation which I have had with the representatives of the Board of Trade, that they are entirely at one with the honourable Gentleman, and, I imagine, with the majority of the people of this country, in desiring that such provision as is considered necessary under the Merchant Shipping Act for seamen shall be made in all cases. But, as I have told him, the answer to the question he has asked is that we are advised that, under the Act of George IV., sailors engaged in Indian ports shall be exempt from these regulations as to space. The officials of the Board of Trade have given me leave to say that the desire of the Board of Trade is that proper accommodation shall be provided, and recommendations to this effect have been urged on the Indian Government, which has not, however, seen its way to carry them out. The Board of Trade is still considering the matter, and it is impossible for me to drive the Department beyond that. The Department are advised that the construction of this Act of Parliament is as they put it, and not as the honourable Member puts it. It may be the case that the legal advisers of the Board of Trade are not of any value——
      MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Hear, hear!
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: But I think the majority of the people of this country are more likely to believe that the Board of Trade are competent to deal with the matter. The questions affecting the Board of Trade have been answered fully and candidly. The Department are anxious to do what they can in this matter, in order that the Acts of Parliament may be carried out.
      On the return of Mr. Speaker, after the usual interval,
      MR. MADDISON: I quite admit the difficulties on this most important matter which the right honourable Gentleman has to encounter. But I would like to remind the right honourable Gentleman that a few nights ago my honourable Friend raised this question and attempted to bring it before the Committee. There was no time, and the First Lord of the Treasury told my honourable Friend that there would' be some means of raising it. Therefore the right honourable Gentleman will see that this is not quite a question of springing this upon the House, because the President of the Board of Trade knew that my honourable Friend was going to bring it forward. I must say that I cannot regard the reply of the right honourable Gentleman as satisfactory. I do not pose as a lawyer; I know nothing about law; but it does appear plain on the 210th clause of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894, that any British ship occupied by seamen or apprentices, and appropriated to their use, shall have to give them not less than 72 cubic feet. The Act goes on to say that this shall apply to all seagoing British ships registered out of the United Kingdom. That seems to show that not only does the Act provide for ships registered in the United Kingdom, but that it very wisely applies to ships registered anywhere out of the United Kingdom. I take it that the P. and O. are British ships registered in the United Kingdom. Then I find that Lascars, who, after all, are British subjects, have only half the accommodation allowed them which the Act stipulates that any seaman in a British ship shall have. Now, Sir, I can quite understand, from what my honourable Friend says, that in the Indian coasting trade a very small space may be sufficient. Therefore I am willing to believe that there is some excuse for it, but I am totally at a loss to understand how Her Majesty's Government can for one moment defend the giving of half the space to a British subject because ha happens to be coloured. Many of these Lascars, I am informed, are brought from India, and are re-engaged in the port of London. If that is so, I cannot
      734
      conceive that any person who heard the right honourable Gentleman's reply can be satisfied. I desire to join my honourable Friend in this appeal and protest. I think it is absolutely necessary that we should have convincing proof from Her Majesty's Government that they will at least encourage the employment of British seamen, for I regard these Lascars as British subjects.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: They do not complain.
      MR. MADDISON: They do. However, it may be as the right honourable Gentleman supposes, that the Lascars do not complain; but we in this House must maintain sanitary conditions for British subjects even if they offered no complaint.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable Gentleman, but I understand him to say that unless the conditions were altered Lascars would not be obtained.
      MR. MADDISON: I have no doubt in my mind as to the obtaining of Lascar seamen. There are too many of them. They are on the whole unacquainted with the standard rate of pay and the standard of their education is very low. I am quite sure that the right honourable Gentleman and his colleagues in the Ministry would not for one moment contend that there should be less cubic space for Lascars because the Lascars do not complain, or because we can get a large number of Lascars. In this House we have had to pass legislation directly in opposition to the wishes of the victims of bad sanitation. I am surprised that Her Majesty's Government do not put the Lascar on an equality with the British seaman. I regret this exceedingly, because it lends weight to the agitation against the Lascar seamen, and because it acts against anyone who may not happen to be born in the United Kingdom. The Government in this instance give us no satisfaction; they tell British seamen that they are content to allow this state of things to go on for an indefinite period—that the Lascar is to be berthed in 36 cubic feet of space, while the British seaman is to

      735
      have just double the amount. I cannot think for one moment that the right honourable Gentleman's statement about the difficulty in getting definite information will satisfy the seamen of the United Kingdom at all. I, for my part, must join the protest against the lack of attention on the part of the Board of Trade to a matter which has been before the country for a long time. I want to raise one or two points about another matter, namely, the Labour Department of the Board of Trade. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Labour Department of the Board of Trade has been justly called the Intelligence Department of Labour, and I think I am expressing the feelings of workmen generally when I say that this was a very great step in advance when, the late Mr. Mundella formed this Labour Department and endeavoured to give to the workmen of the country accurate end ready information about matters vitally affecting them. I, for my part, am quite prepared to admit that, on the whole, the experiment has been a success. With regard to the Labour Gazette I have only one request to make, and I am sure the right honourable Gentleman will convey it to the proper quarter. The Labour Gazette gives a large amount of information, but there is one little item which we have not been successful in getting the Department to publish from month to month. It is a small matter, but it has been too much up to the present to secure. It is this: each month there should be a list of all Government and other accessible publications dealing with trade and labour, together with the title and the price. The right honourable Gentleman probably knows that this is done for the commercial classes. I think it is an admirable thing, and I think that the same thing ought to be done in the Labour Gazette. I am sure the right honourable Gentleman will admit that this is not an extravagant demand, and I hope he will regard it as a reasonable one. The objection would be that the Labour Gazette is already crowded, and that this would mean an enlargement of the paper. I hope this argument will not stand in the way of a journal which already costs the country a little. The extra cost
      736
      would be a mere bagatelle. There is one other question, and that is with respect to the local correspondents of the Board of Trade. Some of us hold very definite opinions that the correspondents of the Board of Trade ought to be increased and that there ought to be a more systematic and official method of collecting information. I won't go into the larger question, but merely call the attention of the right honourable Gentleman to- the local correspondents who are now employed. These, Mr. Speaker, are invariably prominent workmen in the various localities. Well, now, the remuneration given to these men ranges from £15 to £25 per annum. They get postage, and they get a scale of expenses, not high, but low. What I complain of is that the payment of these local correspondents has in the past been shabby in the extreme. I am concerned not simply about the men, but about the office they hold. It is utterly impossible under the present conditions to expect these men to work for a living and then give up the necessary time to gain the requisite information. The Labour1 Department is constantly making a demand upon their time, and the treatment of these men is not calculated to attain the end in view. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will represent this to the Department, so that we may have a better system of outposts throughout the country, with the result that we may have fuller and more prompt information than we now obtain. I will not weary the House any further, Mr. Speaker, though I am bound to say that of late doubts have come into my mind—and they are shared by many others—whether the distinctive labour character of the Department has been quite maintained; and I would like to offer one word of warning. If the Department is strengthened or increased no greater mistake could be made than doing so in the direction of the ordinary Civil Service. The Labour Department is of no value except as containing men who have intimate technical knowledge of the labour movement.
      DR. CLARK: I very much regret the answers we have got from the Board of Trade. This is a, question we had up last year, and twice this year,

      737
      and for several years it has been before the House. The, First Lord of the Treasury some days ago gave a pledge that the legal position, of the P. and O. Company should be defined. It is only fair to that Company to say that they generally give 60 cubic feet to the Lascars. There may be some doubt as to their ships trading to India, but there can be no element of doubt as to their ships sailing from London to Australian ports. What I protest against is that you should permit the company which you charter, and to which you pay a high bounty for carrying the mails, to transgress for years an important section of the Merchant Shipping Act by allowing only 60 cubic feet instead of 72 to the Lascars. We have had no decent reasons why that should be allowed. The First Lord of the Treasury said the question would be inquired into, but now we are at the end of the Session, and nothing Las been done. I look upon this question from the public health standpoint, and it is a shame that the Board of Trade has taken no action in this matter. It is a matter of vital importance that these men should live on the ships under decent sanitary conditions, and not bring plague to this country. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
      Mr. SPEAKER: The honourable Member cannot do that. I have already put the question that the House do agree with the Resolution.
      Mr. BROADHURST: I understand that there is no dispute as to the law about 72 cubic feet being required in British vessels. The whole history of the dispute centres round the point as to whether the P. and O. boats come under the definition of Indian vessels or British vessels? Are the P. and O. boats to be considered as coming under the Indian Shipping Act, or under the British Shipping Act? We have been told that this is a matter of law, and that the Board of Trade have been considering it, for 12 months, but that their legal advisers are not yet in a position to say whether these vessels come under the Indian Act or the British Act. The P. and O. boats are registered in the port of London; they are subsidised by the British Government, and it was unfair
      738
      that they should have all the advantages of the Indian Merchant Shipping Act, and all the advantages of the subsidy from the British Treasury. The honourable Member for Middlesbrough has just informed me that the Indian Government itself wanted to impose this 72 cubic feel limit on the P. and O. boats. I do not want to make any complaint about the right honourable Gentleman not being in a position to make any pledges or promises, but I think he might have said that the position of the P. and O. company was unreasonable on the face of it. Why should one vessel have only 32 or 36 cubic feet, and another be compelled to have 72? It is not a question of whether the Lascar is a British subject or not; he is a human being, and he needs breathing space. In our own interests, and in the interests of public health, in the interests of sanitation, and in the interests of every British-bred sailor, we ought to insist that there should be ample, complete, full, and necessary accommodation for all the persons working on those ships, especially when we consider the climate through which they have to pass in their journeys to Bombay. We enforce, in our vessels going from Liverpool to New York, certain regulations, where, perhaps, one could live in half the space. Now, we do not expect anything unreasonable from the right honourable Gentleman, but we do expect that strong representations will be made in his usual manner, when he determines that question of importance, and that he will bring to bear upon the Board of Trade those qualities with which we are so intimately acquainted and I am sure that good will follow. I regret that through an oversight, or perhaps from modesty, or a desire not to embarrass the Government, my honourable Friend is unable to press for a Division on this point.
      Sir A. B. FORWOOD: I only desire to venture to offer one or two observations upon this subject with regard co the speech of the honourable Member who has just addressed the House. In the first place, I desire to draw a distinction, and an emphatic distinction, as regards this question of subsidy, which should not be mixed up with any question as to the

      739
      manning of the ships. The subsidy is paid to vessels for performing certain work for Her Majesty's Postmaster General, and there is nothing in the contract as to how those ships are to be manned. That question comes under an entirely different consideration. The P. and O. Company's vessels are paid a certain sum of money for carrying the mails to and from various ports in the East. So far as the company discharges that duty in accordance with the contract this question of manning has nothing to do with it.
      MR. BROADHURST: I am sure that the honourable Baronet opposite does not wish to misrepresent me. No question of manning has arisen, but it is simply a question of breathing space.
      SIR A. B. FORWOOD: Any question as to the accommodation given to the crew does not enter into the contract. Well, now, I come to the question which has been raised, whether these vessels, because they happen to have a subsidy, should be treated any different to other vessels that carry the same crews. Now, the bulk of the vessels that proceed from this country through the Suez Canal to the East carry Lascar crews, and carry them under the same conditions as the P. and O. Company carry their crews. Now, if there is to be any question raised as to the legal obligations which these vessels are under, it applies, not to the P. and O. Company alone, but to all the vessels proceeding to the East which carry Lascar crews. The whole subject of breathing space to be allowed to the crew turns upon health and sanitation. Now, I have not heard that the health of Lascars on these vessels is in any degree worse than that of British ships proceeding to the East generally, and if the Lascars perform their services and enjoy good health on these voyages, then it is fair proof that the accommodation and treatment of these men on the vessels which carry them, is satisfactory, and does not require the attention of this House. But, Sir, another point comes in. There are two jurisdictions. These men are shipped in the East. They are shipped there under the law of the Government, which understands the nature, character, and habits of the people for whom it legislates. We in this coun-
      740
      try understand the wants and necessities of the British seaman, and of the Englishman, the Irishman, and the Scotchman, and what he requires on the ships, and our laws for the crews shipped in this country require a certain number of cubic feet, and the Board of Trade very properly see that those laws are carried out. Now, if the crew is shipped in India, surely it is within the competence of the Indian Government to see that their regulations for the carrying of the people, more particularly under their Government, are carried out in. those ships, and I maintain that if the regulations laid down by the Indian Government, after careful inquiry, for the safe housing and accommodation of those Lascars are carried out, it is not for this country, when a ship arrives here, to-inquire or to set up a dual control over those ships. I was present at an inquiry within the last two or three years upon, the question of the manning of British ships, where the question of carrying. Lascars was carefully and closely gone into; and all I can say is that it was the opinion of a large number of that Committee of inquiry that the Lascar is a thoroughly reliable and desirable man to carry on a vessel trading through the Suez Canal and the East, and there was no question raised during the whole of that inquiry as to the regulations of the Indian Government not being sufficient to ensure health and comfort to those people.
      MR. LOWLES: I sympathise with the remarks: which have just been made by the honourable Baronet, and I am bound to say that I think that the Board of Trade have been very unjustly attacked in this matter. I have made frequent voyages; on the P. and 0. Company's boats myself, and I have seen the conditions under which these men live, and I am bound to say that I have never seen a more contented and better cared for lot of sailors than these Lascars. They live on different food to the British sailors, and are more suited to the climate. I would not stand up for the P. and O. Company, if I thought they were in fault, but I am bound to say, from my own close observation of them, that these men are exceedingly well treated. I heard no complaint,

      741
      and I believe that the accommodation provided for them is adapted to all their requirements.
      SIR C. DILKE: The last speaker has rather moved away from the ground upon which this question presented itself to me. To me it has always been a purely legal question. Now, I have discussed over and over again for many years past the two clauses of the Merchant Shipping Act, which bear upon the question and the old Act of George IV., and I have never been able to see but that the language of the Acts is quite clear with regard to British ships. I
      cannot see that any reservation in the old Act comes in at all, and I am perfectly certain that it was not in the minds of the House of Commons when the new law was enacted. With regard to the amount of space required for British seamen, the words of the chief Act seem as clear as an Act of Parliament could possibly be.
      Question put.
      "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      The House divided:—Ayes 101; Noes 33.—(Division List No. 307.)

      Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

      Roberts, John B. (Eifion)

      Woods, Samuel

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Spicer, Albert

      Macaleese, Daniel

      Steadman, William Charles

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Havelock Wilson and Mr. Maddison.

      M'Ghee, Richard

      Strachey, Edward

      O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

      Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

      Pickersgill, Edward Hare

      Williams, John C. (Notts)

      Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

      Wills, Sir William Henry

      Resolution agreed to.
      At 10 o'clock Mr. Speaker, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 21st of February last, proceeded to put the questions necessary to complete the proceedings on the Resolution reported from the Committee of Supply.
      23. "That a sum, not exceeding £27,525, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge V Inch will come in course of payment daring the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899, for a Grant in Aid of the Mercantile Marine Fund."
      24. "That a sum, not exceeding £7, 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, 1899, for meeting the Deficiency of Income from Fees, etc., for the requirements of the Board of Trade, under the Bankruptcy Acts, 1883 and 1890, and ' The Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890."
      25. "That a sum, not exceeding £9,432, 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, 1899, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners in Lunacy in England."
      26. "That a sum, not exceeding £42, 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, 1899, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mint, including the Expenses of Coinage."
      27. "That a sum, not exceeding £15,372, 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, 1899, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Public Record Office."
      28. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,195, 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, 1899, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Establishment under the Public Works Loan Commissioners."
      744
      29. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,612, 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, 1899, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Lunacy in Scotland."
      30. "That a sum, not exceeding £27,932, 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, 1899, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant in Dublin and London, and Subordinate Departments."

      CLASS III.
      31. That a sum, not exceeding £3,250, 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, 1899, for the Expenses of the Crofters' Commission."
      32. "That a sum, not exceeding £54,889, 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, 1899, for the Expenses of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland, and of the Prisons under their control, including the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics and the Preparation of Judicial. Statistics."

      CLASS IV.
      33. That a sum, not exceeding £605, 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, 1899, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners for managing certain School Endowments in Ireland."
      34. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,604, 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, 1899, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery of Ireland, including a Grant in Aid for the purchase of Pictures."
      35. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,450, 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, 1899, for a Grant in aid of the Expenses of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland."
      36. "That a sum, not exceeding £182,463, 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, 1899, for Grants in Aid of the Expenses of the British Protectorates in Uganda and in Central and East Africa, and under the Uganda Railway Act, 1896."
      Resolutions agreed to.

  SUPPLY [5th AUGUST].
  Resolutions reported.
  SUPPLY [5th AUGUST].
    CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1898–9.

      CLASS II.
      1. "That a sum, not exceeding £26,982, 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, 1899, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Registrar General of Births, etc., in England."
      2. "That a sum, not exceeding £340,535, 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, 1899, for Stationery, Printing Paper, Binding, and Printed Books for the Public Service, and for the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office; and for Sundry Miscellaneous Services, including Reports of Parliamentary Debates."
      3. "That a sum, not exceeding £14,405, 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, 1899, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Her Majesty's Woods. Forests, and Land Revenues, and of the Office of Land Revenue Records and Inrolments."
      4. "That a sum, not exceeding £37.094, 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, 1899, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."
      5. "That a sum, not exceeding £13,000, 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, 1899, for Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services."

      CLASS IV.
      6. "That a sum, not exceeding £681,867, 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, 1899, for Public Education in Scotland, and for Science and Art in Scotland."
      7. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,000. 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, 1899, for a Grant to the Board of Trustees for Manufactures in Scotland in aid of the maintenance of the National Gallery, School of Art, and Museum of Antiquities," Scotland."
      8. "That a sum, not exceeding £400,781, 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, 1899, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Science and Art, and of the various Establishments connected therewith, including sundry Grants in Aid."
      9. "That a sum, not exceeding £108,280, 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, 1899, for the Salaries and other Expenses of the British Museum, and of the Natural History Museum, including certain Grants in Aid."
      10. "That a sum, not exceeding £8,274, 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, 1899, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery, and of the National Gallery of British Art, Millbank, including a Grant in Aid for the purchase of Pictures."
      11. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,525, 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, 1899, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Portrait Gallery, including a Grant in Aid for the purchase of Portraits."
      12. "That a sum, not exceeding £5,927, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Wallace Gallery (Hertford House)."
      13. "That a sum. not exceeding £16,452, 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, 1899, for sundry Grants in Aid of Scientific Investigation, etc., and other Grants."
      14. "That a sum, not exceeding £66,507, 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, 1899, for Grants in Aid of the Expenses of certain Universities and Colleges in Great Britain, and of the Expenses under The Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889."
      15. "That a sum, not exceeding £10, 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, 1899, for the Expenses of the University of London."

      CLASS V.
      16. "That a sum, not exceeding £271,600, 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, 1899, for the Expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad, and of the Consular Establishments Abroad and other Expenditure chargeable on the Consular Vote."
      Resolutions agreed to.

  COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS.
  (8TH AUGUST).
  Resolution reported—
  "That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st of March, 1899, the sum of £42,968,470 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  Question put.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. J. W. Lowther, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, 'and Mr. Hanbury.

  THE CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,: I beg to ask for leave to introduce the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill—
  "to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899, and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament."
  Leave given, and Question put—
  "That the Bill be read a first time."
  Agreed to.

  VAGRANCY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  (Consideration of Lords' Amendments.)
  Motion made.
  Question proposed—
  "That the Lords' Amendments be now considered."
  Amendment proposed—
  "That the, Lords' Amendments be considered this day three months."—(Sir C. Dilke.)
  SIR C. DILKE: I rise in order to draw the attention of the House to the course which the Government have pursued in regard to this Bill in another place. The course pursued on this Bill is one of the most inconvenient that can possibly be adopted, and one which, if it were applied to other measures, might succeed in defeating the intention of the House and establish a very far reaching precedent indeed. Now, when this Bill was under discussion in this House, a considerable time ago, an Amendment was moved by my honourable Friend the Member for Bethnal Green, which that Gentleman was prepared to support by speech and argument, but he was stopped on that occasion by the representatives of the Government, who called out, "agreed, agreed" to the Amendment, and consequently no discussion upon that Amendment took place. Now, two Amendments have been introduced in another place. One of them is a, mere Amendment of form, which makes no difference whatever to the meaning of the Bill, and is purely verbal; but the other is an Amendment of substance, and it has the effect of knocking out of the Bill the clause which my honourable Friend the Member for Bethnal Green induced the House to put in here. This is a clause dealing, not simply with the matters of this Bill in particular, but dealing with the whole of the Vagrancy Acts. My honourable Friend comes down to this House supported by a majority upon this side of the House, prepared to argue his case, but he is met by the Government, who agree that he has a good case, and no fight is made by the Government upon this point. Then the Government take the Bill to another place, and in

  749
  another place the very representative of the same Department—the noble Lord who represents the Home Office—who had charge of the Bill in this House, and who assented to my honourable Friend's proposal, which was acceded to by the unanimous decision of this House in its favour, produces a unanimous decision in the House of Lords the other way, and the clause is struck out on the Motion of the representative of the Government representing the same Department which agreed to it in this House. I need not assure the House what the effect of this will be upon our general understanding upon matters of this kind. A Member of this House is met by the Government with courtesy, and he is told that he need not trouble himself or the House with his speech, as they agree with him, and accept his principle; and then, at the very end of the Session, he finds that in another place that verbal agreement with himself has been broken, and the unanimous opinion of the House has been defeated, for, by a unanimous vote in another place this clause is struck out, without a word of explanation to the House. It seems to me that the House ought to mark its disapproval of such treatment at the hands of the Government, and for that reason I beg to move this Amendment.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,: I do not think that the right honourable Baronet is quite correct when he says that this was done without a word of explanation. There are two Amendments put in by the Lords, and, as the right honourable Gentleman has said, one of them is a purely formal Amendment. But, with reference to the other Amendment, what happens is this. The Bill, as introduced, was a Measure for bringing within the Vagrancy Act of 1828, and subsequent amending Acts, certain persons, whom it appeared to the House very desirable to get hold of and punish by whipping. Now, the honourable Member for Bethnal Green moved a general Amendment to the Bill, by which the original power of whipping contained in the old Act of 1824 would be abolished. Well, Sir this question has been brought before a predecessor of mine in office some four or five years ago, or longer
  750
  than that, and before my right honourable Friend the Member for Sheffield, who was at that time the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and though no definite promise was made upon the question, yet undoubtedly I understand that my predecessor and the right honourable Gentleman then in charge of the Home Office thought it was not necessary to maintain this power of whipping in the Vagrancy Act of 1824. I said at the time that, so far as I saw, my own opinion was that it was unnecessary to retain this power. Well, Sir, in another place, when this Bill was considered, it was thought, and I was persuaded, that in a Bill which was merely for the purpose of bringing within the Act persons of a particular character whom you desired to prevent carrying on their abominable transactions, that it was not desirable to introduce such an Amendment to the Act of 1824, more especially when the particular occasion on which it is sought to abolish it is one which would not operate for the particular benefit of this particular class. I do not know whether I stated this fact at the time, but it is true that this power of whipping is one which is very rarely used. I believe I am correct in stating that within the last five years there have only been seven cases of whipping, and with the exception of one case I believe they have all been for indecent exposure—an offence which ought to be punished in the same way as other crimes against public decency. In another place it was thought that it was not desirable to introduce a general Amendment to the Act of 1824, and as opposition to that might have imperilled the passing of the Bill this Session, we made this concession. That is where the matter stands, and I said at the time it was an irregular thing to do. I am afraid I was too good-natured towards the Amendment, and to that extent I confess my fault. I was persuaded afterwards that to introduce a provision of that kind was not satisfactory, and I regret that it was not debated when the Bill was before the House. At the same time, I have a great desire that this Bill should pass. I must say that I hope this Amendment will not be pressed, and that the House will be disposed to agree with the Lords' Amendments.
  DR. CLARK: I think, if we had had this intimation at the previous stage of the Bill, there would have been a considerable amount of discussion of this Measure in Committee, but we were all glad to get rid of it, because we understood that the Amendment proposed by my honourable Friend was going to be accepted, and so the Bill was rushed through.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: There was only one Amendment, and it is unfair to state that it was "rushed" through.
  Dr. CLARK: Now, what is the name of the Bill? It is entitled, "An Act to Amend the Vagrancy Act of 1824." The object of the Bill is that if you have any reason to suspect that certain persons frequent a house, to give power to arrest him because he frequents that house, and if he is supposed to be habitually in the company of certain persons that is sufficient, unless he can prove otherwise, to make him a vagrant. Here are two new principles in the English law, but I do not want to enter into the circumstances of the case. Now, the House permitted these very serious changes to be made in the law because it was expected that some of the clauses of the Vagrancy Act of 1824 would lie amended, and when my honourable Friend the Member for Bethnal Green rose to propose it and to give his reasons, the right honourable Gentleman at once stopped him and accepted the Amendment, and so prevented any discussion at all, and the Bill was got through under these conditions, and my honourable Friend was not allowed to say a single word about it. It was adopted, and the thing was "rushed" through.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: It is not fair to say that it was rushed through, for what I did was that I signified that I would accept the Amendment, and it is hardly fair to say that the Bill was rushed through.
  Dr. CLARK: Then I say it advisedly that the Bill was rushed through. It is an unsavoury question, but it is a question of personal liberty. It is also
  752
  a new principle that under certain circumstances you have got to compel a man to prove his innocence, and not to prove his guilt. We know how the Act affecting suspected persons in Ireland failed, and how the so-called village ruffians afterwards came into this House. We know the men who came here and their quality, and we know that they are superior men to those who were here before them in every way. I wish to protest against this practice. Other Governments may adopt the same course under difficult circumstances. I think it is a very bad precedent to allow, and I hope my right honourable Friend will go to a Division because of the action, of the Home Office. If it had been somebody else I could have understood it, but they accept it in this Amendment in this House, and move its rejection in another.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I wish to remind the House that I brought this question before the notice of the Home Office many years ago when the present Lord Llandaff was the Home Secretary, and Lord Llandaff gave me a distinct promise that he would, upon the very first opportunity which occurred, propose the repeal of this very objectionable provision of the old Act of 1824.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: Yes, I have already admitted that.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I can only state the promise that was verbally made to me by Lord Llandaff, and it was in these terms. He said that he could not take immediate action, but he said—
  "Upon the first opportunity we will propose the repeal of this provision of the old Act to which you object."
  Now, that precise opportunity has occurred in the Bill before the House. The very title of this Bill is alone sufficient to any ordinary mind to establish my case without a single additional word. What is the title? It is "An Act to Amend the Vagrancy Act of 1824." Now, it is the Vagrancy Act of 1824 which contains this objectionable provision, in respect of which the promise of Lord Llandaff was made. If I had desired to create for myself an opportunity which would have exactly met the occasion in

  753
  relation to which Lord Llandaff made this promise, I could not have invented a better opportunity than that which was afforded by this Bill. I join in the protest of my right honourable Friend below me, that if this kind of thing is to go on, the very basis of all promises will be destroyed—if the deliberate action and promise of a Minister in one House is to be repudiated by a Minister in the other House. Now, Sir, I think it will be convenient that I should explain now—and I shall be very brief—what this Act really is, because, I think, there is some misapprehension.
  AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: No, no!
  Mr. PICKERSGILL: Well, I think there is; I know that there are many Members of this House in favour of the infliction of corporal punishment for certain offences.
  AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Hear, hear!
  Mr. PICKERSGILL: I fully recognise and understand the position of the honourable Gentleman, but there are certain circumstances and particular features in this case which ought to induce the most confirmed champion of the lash to vote with me on the present occasion. Now, what are those reasons? In the fewest possible words I will point them out. First of all, there is the jurisdiction of quarter sessions. Now, the exceptional and peculiar jurisdiction of that court in this instance is the only case known to our law in which magistrates can inflict corporal punishment upon adults without the intervention of a jury as to the facts. Now, that is a most extraordinary thing. In all other cases you have, in the first place, the verdict of the jury as to the facts, and it is only even in the High Court, upon their finding, that the judge has power to order the prisoner to be flogged. Mr. Speaker, if I may say so, I think it is monstrous that at this time of day magistrates should have the power of inflicting this degrading form of punishment without the intervention of a jury. It is quite true that this Act is very rarely put into operation. It is generally regarded, and rightly regarded, by
  754
  quarter sessions throughout the country as obsolete, and there are only two or three who apply it. I think we are all agreed now that it is the certainty and not the severity of punishment which prevents the commission of crime, and I ask what possible good can be inflicted by punishment which is thus irregularly and capriciously inflicted. Then, Sir, the right honourable Gentleman said that this punishment was inflicted for a particular kind of offence to which I need not more specifically allude. Well, Sir, that is quite true. Here, again, the capricious way in which punishment is inflicted absolutely prevents any public good being served by the infliction of the punishment. For instance, I find that taking the year 1895—tke last for which I have the figures—there were no fewer than 1,265 persons who were convicted of the offence to which the right honourable Gentleman alluded, and of that number only one was whipped. When punishment is inflicted in this capricious manner, what earthly good can be done by it? Sir, there is another consideration which ought not to be left out of sight in this matter. All persons who have devoted any consideration to the study of mental diseases in connection with medical jurisprudence know that this particular offence which has been mentioned is an early symptom of insanity, and there is a great danger that magistrates should order some poor insane wretch to be flogged. That is not a fanciful danger. It occurred comparatively recently. Twelve months ago the Derbyshire Quarter Sessions, under this particular provision which I am now asking the House to repeal, ordered a poor, insane wretch to be flogged, and it was only the humanity and the intelligence of the medical officer at Derby Prison that prevented that scandalous punishment from being inflicted. I say, then, that this is a practical question, and that although the cases are very few they may produce very great scandal, and we ought, therefore, to repeal the clause. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I will only ask the House very respectfully to remember the long line of instances which ought to warn us against assenting to the Motion which is now before the House. Whenever this House has sought to miti-

  755
  gate the severity of He criminal law, it has met with opposition from another place, from the time when, again and again and again, they threw out a Bill sent up by this House to abolish capital punishment for stealing. I say this instance ought to warn us against being guided by the advice which comes from another place, and I shall therefore join my right honourable Friend if he goes to a Division against the Motion which is now before us.
  Sir W. FOSTER: I should like, Mr. Speaker, to say a word or two on this matter. I was very disappointed when the right honourable Gentleman opposite frankly admitted the whole of the charge made by my honourable Friend below the Gangway [Sir C. Dilke] when he proposed to do his best to rectify what has occurred in another place. What are the facts? An Amendment is moved by an honourable Member, and accepted by the Home Secretary. Then another Minister, in another place, strikes out that Amendment, and the right honourable Gentleman comes down to the House, not prepared to put himself in the same position he was formerly in, but to allow an alteration to be made, which was carried, not merely by this side of the House, but by the unanimous consent of the House and of the Government. Now, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that is an indefensible attitude for a responsible Minister of the

  AYES.

  Ambrose, W. (Middlesex)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's)

  Arnold, Alfred

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Bagot, Capt. J. F.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Greville, Captain

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manc'r)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cook, Fred. L. (Lambeth)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Doughty, George

  Hardy, Laurence

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Heath, James

  Bethell, Commander

  Drucker, A.

  Henderson, Alexander

  Bill, Charles

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Hornby, William Henry

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Hozier, Hon. J. H. C.

  Bond, Edward

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

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Brassey, Albert

  Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Kenyon, James

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lafone, Alfred

  Butcher, John George

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Lawrence, Sir E. D. (Corn.)

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

  Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.)

  Fry, Lewis

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

  Garfit, William

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.((Birm.)

  Godson, Sir A. F.

  Llewelyn, Sir D. (Swansea)

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Loder, G. W. E.

  Crown to take. We have not discussed the subject at length, because there are certain unsavoury matters connected with it; but, on the question of the infliction of corporal punishment, the right honourable Gentleman assents to an Amendment unanimously adopted by this House of Commons, and then allows that Amendment to be negatived by another place. Well, I do not think that that is the manner in which the House of Commons ought to be treated by a responsible Minister of the Crown. I feel bound to say that I shall go into the Division Lobby, and vote against the proposal, and I shall vote also for the postponed consideration of these Amendments, is moved by my right honourable Friend below the Gangway. If the legislative work of the House of Commons is to be carried on so as to maintain the respect of all parties it must, be carried on in a spirit of good faith. I do not, however, think that we have been treated as we ought to have been.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid he also joined issue with the right honourable Gentleman upon the position he had taken up, and should support the Amendment.
  Question put—
  "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 115; Noes 39.

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverp'l)

  Penn, John

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Lowe, Francis William

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Lowles, John

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Purvis, Robert

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E.

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Williams, J. P. (Birm.)

  McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

  McKillop, James

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. S.

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Milton, Viscount

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Monk, Charles James

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

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Strauss, Arthur

  NOES.

  Allen, W. (Newc.-under-Lyme)

  Gedge, Sydney

  Roberts, J. B. (Eifion)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Spicer, Albert

  Bayley, T. (Derbyshire)

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Steadman, William Charles

  Birrell, Augustine

  Hazell, Walter

  Strachey, Edward

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Brigg, John

  Kilbride, Denis

  Williams, John C. (Notts)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Wills, Sir William Henry

  Caldwell, James

  Lough, Thomas

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Woods, Samuel

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

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Maddison, Fred.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir Charles Dilke and Sir Walter Foster.

  Cozens-Hardy, Herbert H.

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Dillon, John

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Doogan, P. C.

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Question put. Question put.
  The Resolution that the Lords' Amendments be considered was then agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That the Lords' Amendment on page 1, line 24, to leave out sub-section 4, be agreed to."—(The Secretary of State for the Home Department.)
  Agreed to.

  AYES.

  Ambrose, W. (Middlesex)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Godson, Sir A. F.

  Arnold, Alfred

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Bagot, Capt. J. F.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Goschen, Rt. Hn. G.J. (St.G'rg's)

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manc'r)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Cook, Fred. L. (Lambeth)

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Greville, Captain

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Doughty, George

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Bethell, Commander

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Bill, Charles

  Drucker, A.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Hardy, Laurence

  Bond, Edward

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Heath, James

  Brassey, Albert

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

  Henderson, Alexander

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon St. John

  Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

  Hornby, William Henry

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Hozier, Hon. J. H. C.

  Butcher, John George

  Fison, Frederick William

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.)

  Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.

  Kenyon, James

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

  Fry, Lewis

  Lafone, Alfred

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Garfit, William

  Lawrence, Sir E. D. (Corn.)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Gedge, Sydney

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Question put.
  "That the House agree with the Lords' Amendment to leave out clause 2."—(The Secretary of State for the Home Department.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 117; Noes 40.

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

  Milton, Viscount

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

  Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

  Monk, Charles James

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Llewelyn, Sir D. (Swansea)

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Strauss, Arthur

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Loder, G. W. E.

  Newdigate, Francis Alex.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Penn, John

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  Lowles, John

  Purvis, Robert

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E.

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Williams, J. P. (Birm.)

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. S.

  McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  McKillop, James

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

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

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  NOES.

  Allen, W. Newc.-under-Lyme)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Spicer, Albert

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  Steadman, William Charles

  Bayley, T. (Derbyshire)

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Strachey, Edward

  Birrell, Augustine

  Hazell, Walter

  Stuart, James, (Shoreditch)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Brigg, John

  Lambert, George

  Ure, Alexander

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Williams, John C (Notts)

  Caldwell, James

  Lough, Thomas

  Wills, Sir William Henry

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

  Clough, Walter Owen

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Woods, Samuel

  Cozens-Hardy, Herbert H.

  Maddison, Fred.

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Pickersgill and Dr. Clark.

  Dalziel, James, Henry

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Dillon, John

  Roberts, J. B. (Eifion)

  LAND TRANSFER ACT.
  Motion made—
  "That this House disapproves of the Order of Council, made on the 18th day of July last, under the Land Transfer Act, 1897, and laid upon the Table on the following day, which directs that registration of title to land shall be compulsory on sale in the County of London."—(Mr. Gedge.)
  MR. GEDGE: Sir, I am anxious not to detain the House very long, and the Attorney General, being anxious to catch a train for Scotland, has asked me, as a friend, to be as short as possible; but I ask for attention, because the matter is really one of some importance, and is similar to that involved in regard to the Bill last under discussion—namely, the extent to which the Government in another place are bound by what has been done by the Government in this House. I should not, of course, take up the time of the House by going into the merits of the Act, but I must just say a few words with regard to it to make my meaning clear. Objections to the Land Transfer Bill were met by two concessions, which were made by the Government when introducing the Bill—first,
  760
  that it should in the first instance be tried as an experiment in one county only, and in no other county for three years, except at the request of the county. The second concession was that within an interval of three months from notice of the intention to put the Act in force being given by the Privy Council to any county in which it was proposed, first of all, to put the Act in force, it would be open to the county council of that county to pass a resolution preventing the Act being enforced. Well, last year it was proposed that the Act should be enforced in Yorkshire, but the Yorkshiremen offered such strenuous opposition to it that it was promptly withdrawn. Ultimately the county of London was selected as the subject of the experiment. I moved an Amendment to prevent this. In a population of five millions, and with enormous property of one kind only—namely, house property, and nothing else—there was not the opportunity for testing the Act that a smaller county with agricultural and a variety of other property would afford. I pointed this out two days before prorogation—it was on the Wednesday, and the House was prorogued on Friday—and

  761
  vigorous opposition could easily have stopped the Bill. I showed that the notice would come before a moribund county council; and it seemed to me that owners and ratepayers should have the opportunity of expressing their views at the new election, to be held in March. The Attorney General told me that I had not read the Bill, and was altogether mistaken. He pointed out that the Act did not come into operation until 1st January, and stated that no notice could or would be given until January. Thereupon I allowed my Amendment to be negatived. Then came a clause which the Attorney General had forgotten, enacting that, not-withstanding the fact that the Act did not come into operation until the 1st January, all notices might be given as soon as the Act was passed. My honourable and learned Friend the Member for York and myself moved to omit the clause; and the Attorney General promptly agreed with me that the clause should go out, in order that effect might be given to the arrangement that no notice should be given before 1st January. There was a distinct pledge, and I am bound to say that it was broken.
  Sir E. WEBSTER: No, no; I beg your pardon.
  MR. GEDGE: I assert that the pledge was broken. I do not say it was broken intentionally, but I do say that it was on the footing that no notice should be given until the 1st January that that clause was struck out. Everyone in the House went away with that impression on his mind. Now, what happened? On the 26th November the Privy Council, relying on an Act passed in 1888, sent to the London County Council the notice which they ought not to have given of this pledge—and the three months expired before that council expired. Consequently the matter could not be brought before the constituents at the election in March as was intended and promised, and the new county council had no opportunity of passing the statutory Resolution of disapproval. Therefore I say that the distinct pledge given by the Attorney
  762
  General has been broken by the action of the Privy Council. It seems to me that we should take care that this House does not lose control of pledges given by a Member of the Government, upon the faith of which opposition to a particular Measure is withdrawn. On the merits, I wish to put before the House two reasons for disapproving this Order of Council. First, as I said just now, this enormous county of London is not a proper county in which to try an experiment of this kind; secondly, the way this Order is framed is peculiar. The Act will come into operation in different portions of the county at different dates, which must inevitably lead to the utmost confusion and difficulty. Therefore on the merits, and also because it seems to me that the promise that was given by the Attorney General has not been fulfilled, I ask the House to disapprove of this Order. I do not propose to move the Resolution exactly as it appears on the Notice Paper. The words;—
  "on the ground (among others) that such Order was made in violation of a pledge given to this House by the Government on the 4th day of August, 1897,"
  are not necessary. I beg to move the first part of the Resolution.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,: I hope that in less than half the time the honourable Gentleman has taken to bring this matter before the House I shall convince the House that he has made out no case whatever for this Resolution. The honourable Member has not even quoted his own words, or my words, accurately; he has not even taken the pains to read the Debate which took place on the last occasion. I will assume that there was a most distinct pledge given that no steps should be taken to bring this Act into operation until more than six months from the 1st January, and I will show the House that the honourable Member has altogether failed to establish any charge of breach of faith. The Act of Parliament contemplates that there shall be six months from the 1st January, and that there shall be a period of three months for the county council to exercise its judgment. I think the House will be

  763
  with me when I say that the honourable Gentleman gave no dates whatever. This Order was never made until the 18th July——
  MR. GEDGE: I said nothing about the Order; I referred to the notice.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: The honourable Gentleman might have abstained from putting a Motion of this kind on the Paper until he made himself acquainted with the facts. It came to the knowledge of the Lord Chancellor that the county council would go out of office on the 12th March, and that, therefore, unless they had some notice before the 1st January they would not have an effective interval of three months. In order to give the county council a complete three months' interval for the exercise of its judgment, notice was given on the 11th November. Then, in March, the old county council went out, and in May the Lord Chancellor formally communicated with the new county council, and asked whether they wished to pass any resolution to reject the Order, and the new county council replied that they had no such desire. Then the Order was laid on the Table for 40 days, down to the 17th July, and no one communicated with the Lord Chancellor or anybody else, or said a word to prevent the Order being carried into effect. Therefore the suggestion that there has been any attempt to evade the carrying out of the terms of the Act in the strictest way is absolutely without foundation. Now I come to the charge of breach of faith. The House will see how baseless is that charge if reference is made to the Debate on the 4th August of last year. Now, I may tell the House at once that I did not remember—and I do not suppose anybody remembered—that under the Interpretation Act, when an Act has been passed, which is to come into operation at a future date, "preliminary steps" may be taken; and it was under the powers of that Act, not knowing that I had said that no steps would be taken to bring the Act into force, that the Lord Chancellor gave the notice he did. But
  764
  the honourable Member's statement, that I said that no notice should be served until the 1st January, is absolutely without foundation. All I said was that no steps should be taken towards putting those provisions into force until the 1st January, 1898. As a matter of fact more than the statutory time has been given, so that everybody might be Consulted. Everybody concerned has had notice, and has considered whether or not to oppose the Order. Nobody has; expressed a desire to oppose the Order. Yet, for the satisfaction of his own personal feelings, the honourable Member has thought fit to put down this Resolution, in order to covertly attack the Lord Chancellor, if he could not attack me. I think the House will be of opinion that he has failed in both.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Notwithstanding what the right honourable and learned Gentleman has said, I think there have been some rather unfortunate circumstances in this transaction. The honourable Member for Walsall had moved an Amendment to the Land Transfer Bill of last year, with the object of limiting its effect. That clause was withdrawn in consequence of a statement by the Attorney General, that the Bill as it stood effected the object my honourable Friend had in view. Now, it seems that owing to the Interpretation Act the Government are really able to put the Act into operation at an earlier date. I should be very reluctant to treat that as a breach of faith, but there seems no doubt that the statement made by the Attorney General, in forgetfulness of the existence of the Interpretation Act, led my honourable Friend to withdraw his Amendment, which he would not otherwise have done.
  Question put, and negatived.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House: of the 18th day of July last, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  House adjourned at 11.25.