Commons Sitting of 18 February 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  CUSTOMS OFFICES (SOUTHAMPTON) BILL.
  Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with. Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 14th February, that, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely—Customs Offices (Southampton) Bill.
  CUSTOMS AND OTHER OFFICES (BARRY DOCK) BILL.
  Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with. Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 14th February, that, in the case of the following Bilk the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—Customs and Other Offices (Barry Dock) Bill.

  BLACKBURN CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS, ETC.) BILL.
  "To authorise the Corporation of the county borough of Blackburn to acquire the undertaking of the Blackburn Corporation Tramways Company, Limited; to construct new tramways in the borough to improve and work the undertaking; to partially consolidate

  1031
  the redeemable debt and mortgages of the Corporation; to consolidate and apply sinking funds; to repeal borrowing powers; to borrow money; and for other purposes."
  Read the first time; to be read a second time.

  BURNLEY CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS, ETC.) BILL.
  "To confer further powers upon the Corporation of the county borough of Burnley with respect to tramways and to their electric lighting and other undertakings, to make further provision for the improvement and good government of the borough, to amend and extend the provisions of the local Acts relating to the borough; and for other purposes."
  Read the first time; to be read a second time.

  TURNCHAPEL WHARVES AND WAREHOUSES BILL.
  Order (15th February), That the Bill be read a second time, read, and discharged.
  Ordered, That the Bill be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.—(Dr. Farquharson.)

REPORTS AND RETURNS.
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (DEFECTIVE AND EPILEPTIC CHILDREN) (COMMITTEE).
  Copy presented,—of Report of the Departmental Committee on Defective and Epileptic Children, with Minutes of Evidence, Appendices, etc. (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (ELECTORS, ETC.) (UNITED KINGDOM).
  Return presented,—relative thereto (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 131, of Session 1897) (Address 9th February—Sir Charles Dilke); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 72.]

  INTOXICATING LIQUORS (LICENCES REFUSED).
  Address for
  "Returns of the number of Victuallers' Beerhouse and other Licences for the sale of Intoxicating Liquors, the renewal of which has been refused in the year 1897 by the Justices of the Peace in each licensing district in England and Wales, showing in each case the ground of such refusal, especially when such ground was in any instance that the Licence was not required; and showing also the result of appeal, if any (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 180, of Session 1897)."—(Mr. Henry J. Wilson.)

  CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (PRESENTMENTS.
  Address for
  "Return showing the Presentments of Grand Juries submitted to the Secretary of State between the 1st January, 1894, and the 31st January, 1898, in favour of legislation for the iniction of Corporal Punishment in cases of offences against Women and young Girls, giving the dates and substance of the Presentments."—(Mr. Warr.)

  NAVY AND ARMY (COST OF ADMINISTRATION.
  Address for
  "Comparative Return showing the total Cost of Administration in the War Office and Admiralty, giving particulars of the number of Military and Naval Officers employed in the War Office and Admiralty, with their rank, salaries, and allowances; also the total number of civilians employed, showing their rank, salaries, and allowances, together with the total amount estimated by the War Office and the Admiralty in the financial year 1898–9, showing the amount expended in salaries, wages, and allowances, and the amount expended on material and works, in the following form."—(Lord Charles Beresford.)

QUESTIONS.

  COUNTY CESS IN MONAGHAN.
  MR. J. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he has received copies of resolutions passed by public bodies and

  1033
  at meetings held in county Monaghan, condemning the Grand Jury of that county for their mismanagement in appointing cess collectors with insufficient security for the collection of the county cess; (2) whether he is aware that it was the duty of the Grand Jury of Monaghan, when appointing barony constables to see that two sureties signed every bond, each having property value the amount of the cess collector's warrant; (3) whether this precaution was taken by the Grand Jury of Monaghan when appointing the defaulting collectors; and, if so, how has the deficiency in the county cess occurred; whether he can state the amount of the deficiency; and, (4) if he will direct the Grand Jury to make good the loss owing to their neglect?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD-LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): Representations have been received to the effect stated in the first paragraph. The fact is also as stated in the second paragraph, and I am informed that the requirements of the law in this respect were duly observed on the appointment of the defaulting cess collectors. The sale of the farms and chattels of the sureties did not, I am told, realise the value at which they had been estimated. The amount of the deficit to be re-presented for at the next Assizes is £2,613 16s. 6d. I have already explained to the hon. Member that the Executive has no power over the Grand Jury, nor is that body responsible to the Executive for the manner in which it performs its fiscal business.

  MARRIAGE CONTRACT FEE.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the registrars of births, deaths, and marriages, in Glasgow, acting on the authority of an interlocutor pronounced by the late Sheriff Glassford Bell, in 1857, charge a fee of 20s. for recording a marriage contracted under the provisions of the Act 19 and 20 Vic, c. 96; whether that interlocutor supersedes the Registrar General's circular of an earlier date, prohibiting the exaction
  1034
  of such a fee; and, if so, why are the registrars in Dundee forbidden to act on the terms of the interlocutor; whether the registrars in Glasgow are permitted to carry through the process in an irregular marriage, charging 10s. for the same, in addition to the fee of 20s. for recording the marriage, and an additional fee of 5s. for the relative certificate, while the registrars in Dundee are only permitted to charge the fee for the certificate; and whether he is aware that the exaction of the fee of 20s. by the registrar of the Blackfriars District, Glasgow, for recording an irregular marriage was disputed in June last; and what is the effect of Sheriff Mair's decision?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): In reply to the first paragraph of the question I believe the facts are substantially as stated, though I am not actually aware of a decision by Sheriff Glassford Bell of the date named, but no record is kept of decisions in the small debt court. In reply to the second paragraph the finding of a sheriff in a suit to recover an alleged statutory fee would practically decide how much the registrar could recover within the limits of that jurisdiction; the decision would therefore not affect Dundee. In reply to the third paragraph the sheriff has the superintendence and control of registrars within his own county. I believe that the question of the practice of registrars is at present under the consideration of the sheriffs; and I therefore desire to express no opinion, but I shall communicate with the sheriffs with a view of obtaining uniformity of practice. In reply to the last paragraph, I am not at present fully informed; but no doubt the sheriff's decision would have the effect already indicated.

  TELEGRAPH SERVICE BETWEEN FRANCE AND DOVER.
  MR. COHEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that telegrams addressed from France to Dover have to be transmitted through London, and that, in consequence of this arrangement, the

  1035
  mail packet which left Dover on the morning of the 28th December last had to return to that port because of the delay in the telegram despatched from Calais with warning that the entry into Calais Harbour was impossible; and whether arrangements can be made so that, in future, telegrams from France to Dover or Folkestone should be transmitted direct instead of through London?
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, owing to the stormy weather prevailing on 29th November, 1897, a telegram was dispatched from Calais at 10.25 a.m. to Dover intimating that it was not safe for the Dover-Calais boat to attempt a landing at Calais; whether such telegram failed to reach its destination till 1.50 p.m., and was much too late to prevent the boat from starting; whether the boat, having started and crossed the Straits and found the landing at Calais impracticable, was compelled to return to Dover; and, whether it is the fact that since the Post Office took over the telegraphic service, all telegrams from Calais to Dover have to be passed through London?
  MR. HANBURY: I think it will be convenient if I answer these Questions together. They both apparently relate to the same incident, which happened on the 29th November. There was no interruption in the Mail service on the 28th December, and the facts are as stated by the hon. Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield. The Postmaster-General is aware that telegrams from France to Dover have to be transmitted through London. The delay to the telegram in question, however, was not attributable to this cause, but to the interruption by the storm of the line between the Telegraph Office in Calais and the landing-place of the cable on the French Coast, about six miles away, which necessitated the circulation of the telegram by a very circuitous route, as many other French land lines were also interrupted. There is not sufficient traffic to justify the allocation of direct wires between France and Dover or Folkestone, and the transmission of the
  1036
  telegrams through London does not involve any appreciable delay. The Postmaster General is, however, considering whether it will be possible to make any arrangements whereby the consequences of an interruption of the normal communications may be rendered less serious than they were on the occasion in question.

  THE LINE BATTALION AT WARLEY.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state the establishment and actual strength of the line battalion quartered at Warley, Essex, exclusive of reservists; how many men under 20; and how many men who have not completed the musketry course; and whether this battalion is included in the first or second army corps and will go on foreign service next year?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): The battalion at Warley is the 1st battalion of the Essex Regiment. Including its depôt, its establishment of non-commissioned officers and men is 838. The draft for the foreign battalion left early this month, and left the 1st battalion with its depôt at a strength of 685. Of these 292 are under 20 years of age, amongst whom 139 have not completed their musketry course. The battalion is in the second Army Corps. It will probably relieve its foreign battalion in 1899–1900.

  LAND COMMISSIONERS AT BELFAST.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of fair rent appeals disposed of by the Chief Land Commission at its sitting in Belfast in November last, and the number of cases in which the judicial rents fixed by the Sub-Commissioners were reduced, confirmed, and increased respectively, and also the names of the Chief Commissioners who formed the Court?
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the names of the chief Land Commissioners who held the sitting at Belfast in December

  1037
  last; and if he will state the number of cases in which the judicial rents of the Sub-Commissioners were reduced and increased respectively?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: These Questions in the name of the same hon. Member must be taken together. The hon. Member in putting these Questions as to the names of the Commissioners is obviously asking for information which is already in his possession. I cannot interpret the Questions otherwise than as being intended to convey a reflection upon the impartiality of certain Commissioners, and, this being so, I must respectfully decline to answer the Questions.

  MANUFACTURE OF CORDITE.
  SIR BEVAN EDWARDS: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the whole of the details of the Government process of cordite manufacture, and of the special machinery employed at Waltham Abbey, has been published in a paper read by Mr. E. Anderson at the Civil Engineers' Institute; whether Mr. E. Anderson is a son of Sir William Anderson, the Director General of Ordnance Factories; and whether, before this paper was read, the permission of the Admiralty and the military authorities of the War Office was obtained?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): The processes by which cordite is manufactured are not secret. They are known to at least five private manufacturers, and, indeed, were recently disclosed in full detail in an action in the High Court of Justice. There is nothing special or secret in the character of the machinery used at the Ordnance Factories, and similar machinery can readily be obtained from private firms. The gentleman referred to as having read a paper on the subject of cordite is a son of the Director-General. He is not in the service of the Crown, but he voluntarily sought and he obtained the formal approval of the War Office to read the paper, the draft of which was submitted to the military authorities.

  DISTRESS IN BAWNBOY UNION.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he has received any report from the inspector in charge of Bawnboy Union on the subject of distress in that union; (2) whether he is aware that there are several public roads which it would be of great utility to have repaired in the union; and whether he can hold out any hope that help in this direction will be granted?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the statement made in the second paragraph. The measures adopted for the relief of exceptional distress were not, however, designed for the sole purpose of carrying out improvements in districts in which they appear to be required, but for the establishment of labour tests on conditions already explained by me. Should the necessity arise, the Guardians of the Bawnboy Union will be given an opportunity of adopting the Government proposals. The Inspector in charge will again visit the Union at an early date, and report further as to the condition of the poorer classes.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS IN IRELAND.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the amount remaining unexpended out of the sum voted by Parliament for the construction of light railways in Ireland; whether he is aware that these lines are urgently required to be constructed for the opening up of the congested districts in Cavan; and can he state the intentions of the Government relative to them?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The entire sum made available for the construction of light railways in Ireland by the Railway Act of 1896 has been hypothecated, with the exception of a small margin

  1039
  required for contingencies. It is not the intention of Government to ask Parliament to provide additional funds for light railways at present.

  ARRESTS IN COUNTY CLARE.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the circumstances under which seven men were arrested at Crusheen, County Clare, on the 10th instant; and what the charge against them is, and when they are to be tried?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The seven men referred to in the Question were arrested on the charge of firing into the dwelling-house of a farmer named John Halloran on the night of the 21st January and carrying away his gun. The defendants were brought before the Magistrates at Gort Petty Sessions yesterday, but were not identified, and were discharged.

  DISTRESS IN LISTOWEL UNION.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has received a copy of a resolution from the Guardians of the Listowel Union, passed unanimously at their meeting on the 10th inst., in which they state that agricultural labourers in certain portions of the Union are in a state bordering on starvation; and whether there is any intention to take steps for the opening of relief works within the Union district?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have received a copy of a resolution to the effect mentioned in the Question. The number of persons in receipt of outdoor relief in the Listowel Union is considerably less than at the same period in the year 1895, when it was not found necessary to open relief works in the Union. On the information before me, I see no reason to apprehend extraordinary distress in this Union during the coming spring, or an amount of destitution amongst the labouring classes beyond what can be provided for out of the rates, without laying any exceptional burden on the Union.

  THE SCOTTISH FISHERY BOARD.
  CAPTAIN PIRIE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he can state particulars of the contract for the Scottish Fishery Board as to the cruiser and the packet boat; where are these boats being built; and what is their cost?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: The larger of the new cruisers to be acquired by the Fishery Board is being built by Messrs. John Reid and Co., Ltd., Whiteinch, Glasgow, for the sum of £7,000, and is to be delivered in about five months from this date. The packet boat is being constructed by Messrs. Lobnitz and Co., of Renfrew, at a cost of £2,350, and is expected to be ready in three or four months from this date.

  FOREIGN TRAWLING IN PROTECTED WATERS.
  CAPTAIN PIRIE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Scottish Fishery Board have inquired into the increase of cases of foreign trawling in protected waters during this winter; and, if so, with what result; and whether, as representing Scottish interests in this House, he proposes to take any action?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: The Fishery Board have instructed the commanders of cruisers to take the necessary steps for preventing foreign trawlers from fishing in the territorial waters, but these vessels cannot be prevented from trawling in the Moray Firth, outside the three mile limit, and no complaints have been received of their having carried on their operations inside that limit. So far as has been ascertained, the greatest number of foreign vessels fishing during this winter in the Moray Firth at one time has never exceeded five, and only on one occasion reached that number. As the hon. Member is aware, steps have been taken to prevent and to deal with contraventions of the Fishery Act, and I do not know that there are any further steps which it is possible to take.

  PROPOSED NEW POST OFFICE AT SLIGO.
  MR. PATRICK ALOYSIUS M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the Post Office Department promised last year, through its surveyor, to lay a written statement before the Municipal Council of Sligo, in reference to the selection of a site for the proposed new post office in the borough; is he aware that up to the present no such statement and no application whatever in reference to the selection of a site have yet been laid before the Municipal Council; can he explain the delay; is he aware that several suitable sites are available at a reasonable figure, and that the only obstacle is the refusal of the Treasury to make a grant for any of them; and in view of the fact that the present post office premises are unsuitable and insanitary, and that four years have been spent in prospecting for a new site, will he order a special report on this subject?
  MR. HANBURY: I am not aware of the nature of the promise which may have been given to the Municipal Council of Sligo by the Post Office surveyor. But it is quite probable that he undertook that the Council should be consulted before any site was finally selected. Instructions have, at any rate, been given that steps should be taken to ascertain the views of the Council as to the position of the site at Fish Corner, Lower Knox Street, mentioned in my answer on Monday last to the question on this subject put to me by the hon. Member for North Sligo. There has been no unnecessary delay in the matter. Until recently no suitable site has been offered on terms which could be recommended to the Treasury for sanction; but if no objection is raised to "Fish Corner" the acquisition of that site will be recommended.

  LOCAL LOANS ACT (IRELAND).
  MR. PATRICK ALOYSIUS M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that several public bodies in Ireland having
  1042
  loans from Her Majesty's Treasury are ready and anxious to pay back to the Treasury at par the amount of the principal of such loans now outstanding; and will he consider the advisability of so amending the provisions of the Local Loans Act of last year as to make that Act retrospective, and thereby enable public bodies in Ireland to pay off their liabilities to the Treasury and, by doing so, to effect a saving in their expenditure by borrowing money in the open market at a lower rate of interest than is charged by the Treasury?
  MR. HANBURY: Applications have been received from several local authorities in Ireland, as well as in Great Britain, for permission to pay of at par the outstanding balance of their loans. If such applications were granted it would be impossible not to extend the same facilities to all existing borrowers who might, with the security of local rates, be able to raise money on more favourable terms. Public loans resting on that security amount to over £24,000,000, and it is obvious that the premature return of anything approaching that amount, would not only greatly embarrass the Local Loans Fund, but endanger its solvency. The Act of last year provided that the rates of interest on public loans thereafter made might be reduced; but it did not deal with he question of repayment, and that being so I do not know how, by being made retrospective, it would effect the object aimed at in the second paragraph.

  CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD OF IRELAND.
  MR. PATRICK ALOYSIUS M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is his intention this Session to apply to Parliament for an increase in the income of the Congested Districts Board of Ireland, as recommended in the last report of that Board?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I cannot give any undertaking to deal with this matter during the present Session except

  1043
  to the extent which I have already explained when stating to the House the measures taken by Government in connection with distress in the West of Ireland.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS IN IRELAND.
  MR. PATRICK ALOYSIUS M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is his intention this Session to apply to Parliament for additional funds for the extension of the system of light railways in Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I cannot give any undertaking to deal with this matter during the present Session, except to the extent already explained when stating to the House the measures taken by Government in connection with distress in the West of Ireland.

  HERTFORD HOUSE.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he can make any statement as to the works and alterations now being carried out at Hertford House; and whether he can announce an approximate date for the admission of the public?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. A. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): The Trustees of the Wallace Collection have proposed extensive alterations and additions to Hertford House, in order to render it suitable for exhibition purposes. These alterations and additions will be carried out by the Office of Works, and have already been commenced. There is no probability of their being completed, and the collection arranged for exhibition at least for 18 months from the present time.

  THE UGANDA RAILWAY.
  MR. R. MCKENNA: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how the material for the Uganda Railway is being carried to Mombasa; whether there is any British line of steamers running between Great Britain and Mombasa; and whether any proposal has been made to any British steamship company to guarantee to such company the carriage of the Uganda Railway material in consideration for an undertaking by the company to run a direct line of steamers between Great Britain and Mombasa?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. CURZON,): The material for the Uganda Railway is carried by steamships specially chartered by the Crown Agents for the Colonies. There is no direct line of steamers running between Great Britain and Mombasa. Goods, other than those sent in specially chartered vessels, are trans-shipped at Aden. No such proposal as is mentioned in the last paragraph has been made to any company.
  MR. M'KENNA: Has any such proposal as that mentioned in this question been made by any British Company to the Government, and are the ships actually employed in carrying the railway material German ships?
  MR. CURZON: In regard to the first part of the supplementary question, such proposals were made to the Government, and the Government, acting on the advice of the Crown agents of the Colonies, were obliged, in the interests of economy, to decline them. I am not able to answer the second part of the question, because I do not know.

  FOREIGN PRISON-MADE GOODS ACT.
  MR. G. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, if he will state the estimated value and amount of goods detained by the Commissioners of Customs, under the Foreign Prison-Made Goods Act, that have been proved to be made in foreign prisons?
  MR. HANBURY: The five consignments of Belgian mats, to which I referred in my answer to the hon. Member the other day, have all been proved, to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs, by evidence tendered to them, to have been made or produced wholly or in part in a foreign prison, within the provision of the Act. The five consignments comprise 108 bundles of mats, and their value is estimated at £147 4s.

  MERCANTILE MARINE FUND.
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he can say how soon he will be able to undertake the Bill regarding the Mercantile Marine Fund and the Light Dues on Shipping?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): I cannot name a day for bringing in the Bill, but I hope it will be soon.
  In reply to a supplementary question by Sir CHARLES DILKE, the PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE said: I am afraid that whatever sympathy I may have in the training of British boys on board merchant ships, it will be impossible, without unduly complicating the Bill, to introduce any proposal on that subject.

  COUNTY AND BARONIAL GUARANTEES.
  MR. R. J. POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if it is proposed by the Local Government Bill for Ireland, to be introduced this Session, to pay half the county rate now levied in some counties on agricultural holdings towards payment of county and baronial guarantees to certain railways?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I must ask the hon. Member to wait for my statement
  1046
  on the Introduction of the Local Government Bill.

  DISTRESS IN MACROOM UNION (IRELAND).
  DR. C. R. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been called to the existence of great distress in the Kilnamartyra district of the Mac-room Union; whether several representations 'on the subject have been made; and whether the deaths of Mrs. Sullivan, of Ballyroig, on Monday, 7th inst., and of her daughter on 30th January, in the district mentioned, are to be attributed directly or indirectly to the state of the locality?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The attention of the Local Government Board has not been called to the existence of distress in this district, nor have any representations been made to them on the subject. The Relieving Officer states that the Sullivan family were not destitute, and no member of the family ever applied for relief. Mrs. Sullivan died of heart disease on the 7th instant, und her daughter, who had been ill eight days before her death, was certified to have died of inflammation of the thigh. There is no reason whatever for believing that these deaths were either directly or indirectly due to want of food.

  FRY (LAND) COMMISSION.
  MR J. C. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when the report of the Fry (Land) Commission will be placed in the hands of Members of this House; will the report of the evidence be issued at the same time; and whether he can

  1047
  count for the delay in issuing the report and evidence to Members?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): I hope the report will be issued on Monday or Tuesday morning at the latest. There does not appear to have been undue delay. The order for printing was only given on the 12th, and a first batch of copies was sent off from Dublin last night. I have no information as to the minutes of evidence which have not yet reached me.

  SICK POOR IN IRISH WORKHOUSES.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secreary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an order has been issued by the Local Government Board directing that only paid nurses shall take charge of the sick poor in Irish workhouses in future, which will entail heavy expense on the ratepayers; whether Boards of Guardians in Ireland were consulted before this order was issued; and whether he will direct that half the salaries of paid nurses in Irish workhouses be paid out of the Imperial Exchequer?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The substitution of paid trained nurses for pauper assistance, while, perhaps, entailing some additional expense, will undoubtedly result in increased efficiency in the management of the union hospitals and in the treatment of the patients therein. For many years the Local Government Board have continually impressed upon Boards of Guardians the necessity of providing trained or experienced nurses in workhouse infirmaries and fever hospitals, and it was in consequence of the unwillingness of some Boards of Guardians to carry out the recommendations
  1048
  of the Local Government Board to appoint qualified persons as nurses that the order in question, which is practically to the same effect as the English order, has been issued. Boards of Guardians were not consulted as to the issue of the order. The question raised by the third paragraph is under consideration, but at present I am not prepared to make any further statement in reference to it.

  GOVERNMENT WORKMEN.
  MR. G. W. LODER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Treasury propose to frame a scheme under Section 8 (2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, to be certified by the Registrar of Friendly Societies for the purpose of enabling workmen in the service of the Crown to contract out of the Act if so disposed?
  MR. HANBURY: The matter is now under the consideration of the Treasury.

  ROYAL SUSSEX REGIMENT (1ST. BATTALION).
  MR. LODER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War whether there is any intention of removing the 1st Battalion Royal Sussex Regiment from Brighton during the present year; and whether the Secretary of State for War has received any representation on this subject from the borough of Brighton; and, if so, whether he will give a favourable consideration to such representations, and to the widespread desire on the part of the people of Sussex, that the regiment territorially connected with the county may be permitted to remain there for a further period, seeing that it is upwards of 70 years since the regiment was last quartered in the county?
  MR. BRODRICK: It is nearly the turn of this battalion to proceed abroad, and as it is necessary that it should go through a course of training at Alder shot before doing so, I regret to say that it will not be practicable to retain it at Brighton beyond next summer. A reply in this sense has been made to a representation received from the Mayor of Brighton.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether the second Return of estates under the rules of 23rd January, 1897, in relation to proceedings under section 40 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, has yet been presented by the Registrar of the Land Judges Court?
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): The Return in question has been prepared by the Registrar of the Land Judges Court, and will be laid on the Table without delay.

  IRISH RELIEF OF DISTRESS BILL.
  MR. M. DAVITT: In the absense of my hon. Friend, Mr. DILLON, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when he proposes to introduce the Irish Relief of Distress Bill?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not at present able to answer this Question, and there does not appear to me to be any urgency in the matter.

  MAGISTERIAL APPOINTMENTS AT CAVAN.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the name of the borough magistrate recently appointed by the Lord Chancellor in the town of Cavan?
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Lord Chancellor has been requested to appoint a Justice of the Peace for the town of Cavan under the Towns Improvement Act; whether the name of the chairman has been submitted; and why has he not been appointed as were the two previous chairmen of the Commissioners of Cavan?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The name of the Town Commissioner recently appointed as Town Justice for Cavan is Mr. John Fegan. The subsequent question on the same subject, standing in the name of the hon. Member, has already been answered by me.

  RURAL POSTMEN IN IRELAND.
  MR. MORRIS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether an increase of wages to rural postmen was recommended by the Tweedmouth Commission and sanctioned by the Postmaster General; and, if so, when will the increase be extended to rural postmen in Ireland?
  MR. HANBURY: The Tweedmouth Committee recommended that the minimum wages of established rural postmen in Ireland should not fall below 15s. a week. The pay of these men is being revised in accordance with this recommendation. A few cases are still under consideration which will be settled as speedily as possible. And as all increases of pay which directly accrue

  1051
  under the Tweedmouth Scheme take effect from 1st of April, 1897, no one will suffer by the delay.

  BELFAST LOUGH AS A RECRUITING GROUND.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can see his way to placing a training-ship for boys at Belfast Lough, in view of the magnificent recruiting ground there is at Belfast for engineers, artificers, and stokers and seamen, who could be received on board such a ship; and whether he is aware that at present anyone wishing to join the Navy at Belfast is obliged to go over to Scotland for the purpose, as is shown by the Admiralty advertisements in the Belfast papers?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): No, Sir, I do not see my way to place a, training-ship for boys at Belfast Lough. Boys recruited in any part of Ireland go to the training ship Black Prince, stationed at Queenstown, not to Scotland. The number of stationary training-ships are ample for the requirements of the Navy, and it is not proposed to increase them. As regards artisan ratings, special efforts have been made quite recently to recruit artisan ratings at Belfast, with very little result. The whole question of recruiting, however, is under present consideration, and some methods have already been introduced which have been very successful.

  CHIEF JUSTICE KOTZE.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether President Kruger and the Executive Council of the Transvaal have dismissed
  1052
  Chief Justice Kotze, head of the High Court, from his office; whether Judge Gregorowski, who was brought from the Orange Free State to try the Reform leaders, has been appointed Chief Justice; and what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take in order to secure justice for the Uitlander majority of the population?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I have no official information on the subject, but I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the statements in the Question. Her Majesty's Government will continue to abstain from interference in the internal affairs of the Republic as long as the terms of the Convention of 1884 are strictly observed.

  FRONTIER BETWEEN CANADA AND ALASKA.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government are taking steps to secure the final delimitation of the frontier between Canada and Alaska?
  MR. CURZON: The question of the Alaska Boundary has been dealt with in two sections: namely (1) from Mount Elias northward to the Arctic Ocean, and (2) from Mount Elias southward along the strip of coast to the terminal point fixed by the Treaty with Russia of 1825. As regards the first section, a Convention was signed at Washington, on January 31st, 1897, for the location of certain points along the 141st meridian, which forms the boundary there, and providing for the junction of the points so located by joint surveys. This work is now in progress. As regards the second section, the Boundary Commission, acting under the Convention of July 22nd, 1892, presented a joint report

  1053
  on December 31st, 1895, but the maps attached to the report, on which the topographical results of the survey were embodied, have not yet been received, and up to the present no arrangement for the determination of the true boundary has been effected. The matter is now engaging the attention of Her Majesty's Government.

  FROZEN MEAT.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the limitations on the amount of frozen meat permissible to be supplied by Army contractors, was designed with the object of securing that a reasonable proportion of the meat supplied should be home-grown; and, whether, in view of the fact that under present conditions the whole of the meat supplied may be foreign grown, the form of tender and contract will be altered so as to secure the supply of a reasonable proportion of home-grown meat?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE: The limitation on the amount of refrigerated beef and frozen mutton supplied to the troops, was made in order that the soldier should receive a certain amount of fresh meat. The only way of securing that any of the fresh meat should be of home origin, would be to slaughter the animals in military abattoirs, which do not now exist except at two or three stations.

  LAND COMMISSION (IRELAND), COURT VALUERS' REPORTS.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant
  1054
  of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that, shortly after the express disagreement of Chief Land Commissioner O'Brien with his brother Commissioners at the last November sitting in Belfast, on the question of the trivial variations of the judicial rents based on taking the Court Valuers' instead of the Sub-Commissioners' acreable rent, the Chief Commission issued an order that the parties would not in future be supplied with copies of the Court Valuers' reports; (2) whether Court Valuers' reports are now supplied to the parties even on requisition; (3) if he will state why the copies are refused and for what purpose the order was made; and (4) if he will, suggest to the Land Commission the desirability of continuing to supply copies so long as appeals on questions of value are allowed?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: On the 7th December, 1897, the Land Commissioners announced that owing to the judgments of the Judges of the Queen's Bench Division, in The Queen (Lord Gosford) v. The Land Commission, they had thought it right to adopt a new form of report for the Court Valuers, and that, as this new form of report did not contain any statement as to what, in the opinion of the Court Valuers, was the fair rent of the holding, but merely a statement as to the gross letting value of the holding, and as to certain particulars of the improvements, they would return to the old practice of the Land Commission, and would not communicate the report of the Court Valuers in its altered form to the parties before the case came on for hearing, lest ignorant tenants, or tenants with imperfect knowledge of the terms of valuation, might mistake the sum named in the report as the fair letting value of the holding. To this practice the Land Commissioners have since adhered, except that in cases where the tenants have the protection of being represented by solicitors, they have allowed the parties to see the Court Valuers' reports as soon as the

  1055
  sitting has commenced, although the cases may not have been reached. I have no power to take any action in the matter as suggested in the fourth paragraph of the Question.

  CYCLING ON FOOTPATHS IN IRELAND.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state if any circular has been sent to the officers or men of the Royal Irish Constabulary, encouraging or discouraging prosecutions for riding bicycles on footpaths in Ireland; whether the circular was issued with the sanction of the Government, and under what authority was the legal practice altered or modified; and whether a copy of the circular will be circulated among the Members of this House?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: On the 11th November last the Inspector-General, with my approval, issued to the Constabulary a circular informing them
  "That except in cases of obstruction, or imminence of obstruction, it is not necessary for them to prosecute for cycling on the footpath."
  Before the issue of the circular it was the practice of the Constabulary to prosecute for cycling on the footpath even in cases where there was no obstruction, either actual or imminent; but, in deference to the strongly-expressed wishes of Magistrates and others that proceedings should not be instituted in such cases, it was decided, as a tentative measure, to issue instructions to the effect stated. The circular does not in any way alter, or purport to alter, the law. I had already, before this Question was placed on the Paper, called for a report from the Inspector-General as to the operation of the circular, and on receipt of this report I will consider whether the circular, Originally issued as an experiment, should
  1056
  be allowed to remain in force. Having quoted the terms of the circular I do not see that any useful purpose would be served by laying it on the Table of the House.

  CORK ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that fair rent applications served for 17 months in County Cork are still unheard, that the cases heard from that county in the year 1897 were considerably less than half the number served in the same period, that the staff of Assistant Commissioners is so limited as to allow only one lay Commissioner for the fixing of the rents of the whole county of Cork (the largest in Ireland), and that at the present rate of progress it will take that gentleman three years to dispose merely of the applications already lodged, steps will now be taken by the Lord Lieutenant to so increase the staff of Assistant Commissioners as to enable fair rent applications to be disposed of with reasonable dispatch?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is the fact that during the last year the number of cases heard in the county of Cork was less than half those received in the same period, and that only one lay Assistant Commissioner was then employed. It does not follow that he will be left unassisted for the next three years as implied by the Question. The Commissioners have distributed the members of the Assistant Commissioners' Staff with full consideration of the requirements of each district, having regard to the dates and number of applications pending. As at present advised, I am not prepared to recommend a further increase in the staff of Assistant Commissioners, and certainly not before I have had an opportunity of

  1057
  considering the Report of the Royal Commission presided over by Sir Edward Fry.

  UGANDA AND WEST AFRICA.
  MR. H. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, before the Vote is taken in Supplementary Estimates on Uganda, and West Africa, Papers in regard to these expenditures will be in the hands of Members?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): A Blue Book, carrying the history of the Uganda, Mutiny down to February the 1th will be laid on the Table in the course of next week. As regards the Question which deals with West Africa, the hon. Gentleman is aware that negotiations are pending in regard to that part of the world, and no Papers can be laid at the present time.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The House will be called upon to vote a very large sum of money with regard to the West African policy?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes, Sir; and, of course, the Government will be prepared to defend that policy when the Vote comes up for discussion.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: But how are we to attack it?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have the profoundest confidence in the ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is there any prospect of Papers in regard to West Africa being laid before the House is called upon to discuss the Estimates
  1058
  for the raising of troops for action in that country?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, Sir; I do not think so.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Then I beg to give notice that I shall oppose them.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Uganda Papers now promised will include any Papers with regard to the Roman Catholic claim for compensation.
  MR. CURZON: As far as I am aware it is not contemplated by the Secretary of State to lay such Papers, but I will inquire.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will look back at the Debate on this subject and see whether, as the matter stands, the Government is not unfavourable to the claim?
  MR. CURZON: I will.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what progress has been made by the Committee on Old Age Pensions; and whether there is any probability that their Report will be presented in time to enable the Government to propose legislation on the subject this Session?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have been informed that the Committee are now considering their Report, and hope to have it ready by the end of March, or early in April.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
  (Exemption from the Standing Order).
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYmoved—
  "That the proceedings on the Address in Answer to Her Majesty's Speech if under discussion
  at Twelve o'clock this night be not interrupted under the Standing Order Sittings of the House."
  Motion made, and Question put,—
  The House divided; Ayes 188; Noes 103.

  AYES.

  Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  King, Sir H. Seymour

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Dane, Richard M.

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Ascroft, Robert

  Denny, Colonel

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Austin, Sir John (Yorks)

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Leighton, Stanley

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

  Llewelyn, Sir D.- (Swansea)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Baird, John Geo. Alexander

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Balcarres, Lord

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (L'pool)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Edwards, Gen. Sir J. Bevan

  Lopes, Hy. Yarde Buller

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

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald (Leeds)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  M'Calmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)

  Barry, Francis T. (Windsor)

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man.)

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Finch, George H.

  M'Killop, James

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

  Malcolm, Ian

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Beach, W. W. B. (Hants)

  Fison, Frederick William

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  FitzGerald, Sir R. U. Penrose

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Milbank, Powlett Chas. John

  Bethell, Commander

  Flower, Ernest

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Monk, Charles James

  Bill, Charles

  Galloway, William Johnson

  More, Robert Jasper

  Blake, Edward

  Garfit, William

  Morley, Rt. Hn. Jno. (Montrose)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gedge, Sydney

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (C. Lon.)

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

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Alban

  Murray, Col Wyndh'm (Bath)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. J.

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Newdigate, Francis Alex.

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Northcote, Hn. Sir H. S.

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Carlile, William Walter

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Greville, Captain

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

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

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Richardson, Sir T. (H'rtlep'l)

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

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G.

  Ridley, Rt. Hn Sir Matthew W.

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. W.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltnh.)

  Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithn's-sh)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Cochrane, Thos. H. A. E.

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Heath, James

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renf.)

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

  Colomb, Sir John C. Ready

  Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Cox, Robert

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Smith, Abel (Herts)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Howard, Joseph

  Smith, J. P. (Lanarkshire)

  Howell, William Tudor

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry C.

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

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hutton, J. (Yorks, N. R).

  Stanley, Lord (Lancashire)

  Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. (Lanc. S. W.)

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

  Dalbiac, Major Philip Hugh

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.

  Strauss, Arthur

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh N.)

  Taylor, Francis

  Wayman, Thomas

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks)

  Thorburn, Walter

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. Wight)

  Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

  Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

  Wentworth, B. C. Vernon-

  Woodall, William

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  Waring, Colonel Thomas

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

  Warkworth, Lord

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Younger, William

  NOES.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

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

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ambrose, Robt. (Mayo, W.)

  Gibney, James

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Asher, Alexander

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Kelly, James

  Brigg, John

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Brunner, Sir Jno. Tomlinson

  Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Randell, David

  Burt, Thomas

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Buxton, Sidney Charles

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. C. Seale-

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Caldwell, James

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Richardson, J. (Durham)

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Carew, James Lawrence

  Jones, David Brynmor (S'sea)

  Roche, Hon. Jas. (E. Kerry)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Roche, John (East Galway)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Sinclair, Capt. Jno. (Forfars.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Collery, Bernard

  Kilbride, Denis

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kinloch, Sir Jno. Geo. Smyth

  Strachey, Edward

  Crean, Eugene

  Labouchere, Henry

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Crombie, John William

  Lambert, George

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Curran, Thos. B. (Donegal)

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accringt'n)

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Curran, Thos. (Sligo, S)

  Leng, Sir John

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Daly, James

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thomas, Alf. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Card'n)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

  Davitt, Michael

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Tully, Jasper

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

  Doogan, P. C.

  MacAleese, Daniel

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Doughty, George

  MacNeill, Jno. Gordon Swift

  Weir, James Galloway

  Esmonde, Sir. Thomas

  M'Cartan, Michael

  Wills, Sir William Henry

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Farrell, J. P. (Cavan, W.)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Woods, Samuel

  Fenwick, Charles

  Maden, John Henry

  Young, Samuel

  Ffrench, Peter

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Finucane, John

  Morris, Samuel

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Murnaghan, George

  NEW BILLS.
    REGISTRATION OF PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS.
    Bill to amend the Law with respect to the Registration of Voters for Parliamentary Elections, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Brigg, Sir John Leng, Sir Albert Rollit, Sir Walter Foster, Mr. George Whiteley, and Mr. Whittaker.
    REGISTRATION OF PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS BILL.
    "To amend the Law with respect to the Registration of Voters for Parliamentary Elections," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 9th March, and to be printed. [Bill 86.]
  ORDER OF THE DAY.

    ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
    Order read for Adjourned Debate on Question—
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as followeth—
    "Most Gracious Sovereign,
    "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(Col. Lockwood.)
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: The Amendment I have to move is as follows—
    "And we humbly assure Your Majesty that this House regards with grave concern the policy of internal repression lately adopted by the Government of India, and especially the deportation and continued imprisonment of British Indian subjects without trial, the recent series of Press prosecutions, and the present proposals to increase the severity of the Law relating to sedition in India."
    I do not think that any apology is needed from me to bring forward the question raised in this Amendment. It is indeed true that a great deal of time has been spent on Indian affairs, but that time has been spent hitherto in discussing the war policy. Although I do not in any way desire to detract from the grave importance of the question of the wars on the Frontier pursued by Her Majesty's Government, I will say that I think the questions raised by my Amendment are of real interest to the people of India today. I think also that it is the duty of the House to take the very earliest available opportunity to consider the present home policy of the Indian Government, and to pass some opinion upon it. It is admitted on all hands that India has during the last two months passed through a very critical crisis—perhaps it is still passing through a crisis—and when any kind of severe crisis like this occurs in many portions of Her Majesty's
    1064
    dominions, it is clearly the duty of this House—which, after all, is responsible for the government of the Empire—to give its serious consideration to the stale of circumstances which make up the crisis. And, further, I do not think that there ever was a time, within a comparatively recent period, when it was more needful for us in the House of Commons to give our serious consideration both to the home policy and to the very serious position of the Indian people themselves. Speaking for myself, I desire at the outset to disclaim any Party motive whatever in bringing forward this policy. It seems to me that the nature of the calamity that has recently befallen India requires us to make an earnest effort to abandon the methods usually considered inevitable in political warfare, and to unite together not as politicians, but as those who are equally responsible for the government of the Empire. We should unite to consider what are the best remedies to apply to the state of things in India, and to say whether we agree or disagree with the present home policy of the Indian Government. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for India spoke—and I was glad to hear him speak—in sympathetic terms of the great calamities which had fallen upon India recently. It is undoubtedly true. He referred to the famine, which has been, so far as the area affected has been concerned, greater than any known famine before. He referred also to the plague which had depopulated the cities of the West Presidency, which, from the accounts that we received from India, have not been stamped out, and which has now spread to Deccan and the Punjaub. He also referred to the earthquake which has cost India thousands of lives. I refer to these points in order to emphasise the position which I desire to place before the House as clearly as possible, because it is admitted that India is at the present time passing through this great crisis. It is plain that the mind of the people of India has been greatly unsettled by them, and it seems to me, under such circumstances, that it would be a wise policy to soothe rather than irritate the mind of India by repressive legislation. From reports which we have received from India, it is quite plain—I do not think the noble Lord

    1065
    opposite will deny the truth of the statement for a moment—that at the present time, not only in India, but there is a feeling of uncertainty and alarm abroad, and that this feeling of alarm in many quarters is deeply settling down into a feeling of absolute despair. The people are not only suffering in India from appalling calamities, but at the same time they are the victims of an unsympathetic policy—and what appears to be an unwise policy. At the same time, the point I desire to place before the House is that whatever the merits or the demerits of this particular policy, it is a singularly inopportune time to enforce it. This raises three specific questions, and I will, as shortly and clearly as I can, lay before you the facts relating to these three specific points, and the grounds on which I think I am justified in taking up the position that I do. Sir, the first point referred to in the Amendment is the deportation and the continued imprisonment of British Indian subjects without trial in India. The case, as the House well knows, which has drawn general attention is the case of the Natu Brothers. There is no doubt about the facts of the case. These two men belonged to a family that is highly respected. One of them happens to be a first-class Sirdar in Deccan, and he performed valuable services to the British Crown, and has been suitably rewarded with grants of land. In July last these two men were arrested in their houses, and were transported with some violence and imprisoned, and they continue in prison to-day. No charge of any kind was made against them, and no opportunity was given them to show that they were innocent. Further, their property, both real and personal, was confiscated by the Government. The first point I should like to make in connection with this is, who is responsible for this action? Fortunately for the House of Commons, there is no doubt as to where the responsibility lies, for the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for India, in the Debate of August last on Indian affairs, took upon himself the whole of the responsibility of having sanctioned the arrest and imprisonment of those two men. The next point arising in the case is, What are the special reasons given by the Government for taking this exceptional method of dealing with these two
    1066
    men? First of all, the first main reason given for this singular action on the part of the Government of Bombay—and it was given by the noble Lord in August last on this point—that he did it because be believed that the arrest of these men and their imprisonment without trial, or without an opportunity being given them to prove their innocence, would be the means of unravelling the plot which resulted in the lamentable death of Mr. Rand. The second reason is that it has been done to secure Her Majesty's dominions from internal commotion. I desire to test these two reasons in the light of subsequent events. It is said that this was done because the noble Lord believed, from information in his possession, that it would lead to the unravelling of the conspiracy which resulted in the death of Mr. Rand and Lieutenant Ayerst. What has occurred subsequently? In October last a man came forward in India and confessed openly his guilt of these murders. He has been tried and condemned upon his own confession to death. Further than that, in the course of the trial nothing came out which in any way implicated these two men in that conspiracy to which I refer. That is my first point. The second point which I desire to make in connection with this case is that I would ask the House to consider the position of these two men and their action in connection with these operations. I wish the House to realise that one of these men was himself a Municipal Commissioner at Poona, and that he was asked to volunteer to assist the authorities in coping with the plague. He did so, but in the course of the efforts made to deal with the plague one of these men—R. B. Natu—thought it his duty to write a letter to Mr. Lamb, the District Magistrate of Poona, complaining of certain irregularities in the method adopted of carrying on the work. No doubt, many hon. Members have read the letters which he wrote, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Banffshire brought these letters before the notice of the noble Lord opposite, he is, no doubt, fully aware of the terms expressed and the points raised in them. I venture to say that no man reading those letters would fail to see, so far as the letters are concerned, that they were couched in the most moderate and sensible terms. I

    1067
    mention this as an indirect evidence of the view which we take on this side of the House, that these men were not likely to be at the time a source of danger to the internal peace of the town of Poona. There is only one other point which I desire to make in reference to this matter, and it is this. It is clear, I think, from the fact that the Government of India, in acting as it did—in confiscating the real and personal property of these men; from the fact that they committed an illegality by confiscating not only their real property, but their personal property also, which property has since been returned to them—acted under the influence of panic. It seems to me to be very strange conduct on the part of the Bombay Government as to the meaning and scope of the section under which they acted in connection with this matter, that they failed to act within its limits, and, to my mind, it is an indirect proof that they acted illegally. My next point is, What is the present attitude of the Government of India towards these men? A number of questions were asked by the Legislative Council of Bombay upon the case. The Council asked whether the Government could state a reason for the arrest of these men, and the reply was that they were "reasons of State." They were then asked, "Will they be tried?" and the reply was "That judicial proceedings were not advisable under the circumstances." The next question asked was, "How long were they going to be imprisoned?" and the reply was, "That depends on eventualities not delivered." That is the opinion, that is the attitude of the Indian Government, and that attitude—I believe I am correct in stating—is confirmed by the noble Lord opposite.
    *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): By the Bombay Government.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: One of the objects of this Amendment is to ask the opinion of the Government upon it. It is the duty of this House to review the action that was taken, and also to ask from the noble Lord a full justification of the course which he thought best, to take upon that occasion. But, Sir, it may be said that, after all, this was done under a recognised Act, that it was done and carried out under the regulations
    1068
    of that Act. What Act? It was an Act passed in 1827. It is 70 years ago since that Act was passed, and I venture to say that no one will deny the truth of this statement, that it was passed to meet a state of circumstances, a condition of things, totally different to those which obtain in India at the present moment. In 1827 we were in the process not of governing but of conquering India, and it was essential that the Government should have the right to seize, under certain conditions, those who were suspected of betraying secrets to foreign foes. But who could say that such a state of things existed now? To say that the circumstances now were sufficient to rake up, and put in force, that rusty weapon unearthed from the dim and distant past, to commit without trial, and to obtain the conviction of these two men, was absurd. In concluding this part of my case I wish to emphasise the following point: we do not, in bringing forward this Amendment, desire to say for one moment that these two men are innocent of the charge that has been made against them, or that their being at large or at liberty is not a danger to the internal peace of India. But the point I wish to make is that, whether this be so or not, these men have no right to be imprisoned without being formally charged, and without, having an opportunity of proving their innocence. I now pass for a moment to the second point raised in my Amendment, and that is the Press prosecutions. There have been several, as the House well knows. There is one case which has drawn almost world-wide attention, and that is the case of Mr. Tilak, the Editor of the Kesari. That case has been tried in India, and has been submitted before the Privy Council in this country, and, so far as the judgment passed upon that man is concerned, from a legal point of view, the case is closed, finally closed. I was very glad, Sir, the other day that there was a movement on foot, which is in no sense political, for presenting a memorial to the Government asking that some relaxation should be made of the sentence on Mr. Tilak. This memorial has been signed, in the first place, by Mr. Max Müller, and, I believe, it will be signed by many Members of Parliament on both sides of the House. I do not intend to read the memorial, but I will take two or three points out of it to give its tenour to the House. The first

    1069
    ground on which a relaxation of a sentence of this kind is asked, is the following: Firstly, that for many years Mr. Tilak has proved himself to be a loyal subject; secondly, that he has served his country well as a scholar; thirdly, that the man who committed the ghastly murders has been sentenced; fourthly, that the majesty of the law has been vindicated. Under all the circumstances of the case I appeal to the Government to relax the sentence which has been passed upon him. Speaking for myself, I should like to join very heartily in expressing the same view. This case still operates in the minds of the Indian people, and it is regarded as a deliberate attempt to frighten the Press of India into silence. Now, I do not wish to labour this point, but it must be obvious to all who have thought over the matter at all—to all who know anything about the internal history of India—that the Press has performed a very important part in the development of Indian life, and, on the whole, a very useful part. The freedom of the Press in India, as elsewhere, is the bulwark of government. It enables the Government to know the feelings of the people as to the measures they introduce, and it is the only means by which the public feeling on Measures can be ascertained, and the defects of those Measures disclosed. It also purifies a Government by bringing the light of public opinion to bear on surbordinate officials. However important the Press may be in this country and the other countries enjoying representative Government, it is much more so in India, where the Press carries out so far as it can the part played by elected members in this country. This is not my opinion only, Mr. Speaker, but the opinion of many high authorities on Indian affairs, and I will, with the permission of the House, read two extracts from men whose judgment will commend itself to every Member of this House. My first quotation is the opinion of Sir Richard Garth, a former Chief Justice of Bengal. What does he say about the influence of the Press? Writing to the Law Magazine and Review, he says—
    "I read Native papers myself, week after week, and never see anything there at all approaching sedition or even disloyalty or disrespect to English rule. What I do find there, and what I rejoice to find, is thoroughly well- 1070
    deserved censure of the arbitrary conduct of many of the Government officials. I am afraid this is exactly what Government would wish to repress."
    Then just one more quotation. Sir William Markley, a former Judge of the Calcutta High Court. He says—
    "I should like to add one word on behalf of the Native Indian Press, which is, I think, just now getting more abuse than it deserves. I have for years read regularly extracts from a large number of Native newspapers. The criticisms I have met with are sometimes severe, but for the most part respectful. There is occasionally strong disapprobation, but very rarely disaffection."
    That being the case, speaking generally as to the character of the Indian Press, both Native and English, it seems to me that to pursue this policy of criminal prosecution against them can only have the effect of stopping the free expression of opinions. Grievances unknown, if they remain unknown, will remain unredressed. I do not wish to use any words that will be calculated in any way to in crease the difficulties of the Indian Government, and all I will say upon this point is this, that if this policy is persisted in, it is bound to lead to undesirable results. The Press of India is a safety valve, and it is unwise and dangerous to close it, and to deliberately remain ignorant of the real sentiments of the people. I will pass on for one moment, before I sit down, to the third point raised in my Motion. I would like to say a word or two in reference to the specific alteration made in the law relating to sedition in India. Now, Mr. Speaker, in July, the right hon. Gentle man the Leader of the Opposition, asked the noble Lord the Secretary for India a pertinent question. He asked him whether, in the event of a change in the Press Law of India, an opportunity would be given to Parliament of reviewing those changes before they were finally passed into law. The reply of the noble Lord opposite was that the Government of India were responsible for law and order; that they must in the first in stance initiate Measures, and that those Measures could be reviewed by the House of Commons. I think the time has now come when this House should review the action of the Indian Government relating to sedition in India. What is proposed to be done? In the first place let

    1071
    me put the result broadly. What are the broad results of the proposed change? It is not, Sir, intended as a revival of the Press Act of Lord Lytton, which gave the Indian Government power to stop particular papers, an Act which was almost immediately after repealed by the Liberal Government. This new Measure is not designed for a special regulation of the Press—I wish to lay emphasis upon this point—but it will have the effect of generally modifying the criminal law of India in a manner far more fatal to the interests of the Press than Lord Lytton's Act would have been. What will be the result of these proposals if they are finally passed? The result of the change will be that there will be opened up in India an endless vista of prosecutions all over the country, by local magistrates, of those editors who are suspected of being guilty of the vague offence of disaffection to the Government. I hope I shall not be wearying the House, but I should like to state, in detail, one or two of the more important changes which are proposed. In the first place I think it will be well to divide the changes into two classes, those relating in the first place to the Penal Code, and those relating to the Criminal Code, dealing, Mr. Speaker, first with the penal changes in the Code. Now, there are two changes to which I should like to refer. In the first place a very salutary explanation which was added by Sir Fitzjames Stephen to Section 124a of the Penal Code has been expunged and another explanation has been inserted, giving a new meaning to the word "disaffection," and leaving it in a state of dangerous vagueness. The second point I would make on this is that, according to the proposals of the Government, all offences tryable under this Section are in future to be tryable, not, as hereto, only by Court of Sessions or by the High Court, but by all magistrates of the first class. Anybody who knows anything about India knows that practically all civilians, after three years' service, become magistrates of the first class, and the result will be naturally to place the editors of newspapers in India under the power and control of the local magistrates. I now go on to the changes in connection with the Criminal Procedure Code, and I should like to notice three points, and three only. In the first place, there is the extension of Section
    1072
    109 in the Criminal Procedure Code, which gives magistrates a power to demand security from intending criminals, and those who are suspected of disseminating seditious matter. In other words, it gives the local magistrate the same power over the editors of newspapers in India, both English and native, as they now have in reference to the scum of India. The second point is the alarming extension of powers of arrest without warrant, under the Code, to village policemen; and the third point is the expedients for curtailing the powers of the High Court as a court of appeal—and this is a point I desire to direct the noble Lord's attention to. How is this power of appeal, in relation to the High Court, curtailed? It is curtailed in two main directions. In the first place, direct transfer of appeal to the High Court is prevented. In the second place, it withdraws the power of revision now held by the High Court under Chapter 35 of the Code. Now, Sir, anybody who seriously considers the view I have outlined must come to the conclusion that they are changes of a very important character; that they must affect the Press of India in a very direct and a very important way. Now what is the present position of the case? These important changes have been proposed, and they have passed through a Select Committee, and from information, and from telegrams—I think I saw one telegram in the paper—it is probable that they will be finally passed within a few days. The 18th, I think, is the date of one of the paragraphs I read. The noble Lord will, no doubt, give the House information on that point, but the point which I wish to make, Mr. Speaker, is that it is, I think, the duty of the Government of India, when they propose a change of this character, which is a reversal of some of the main principles of our rule in India, in the past, to give an opportunity to this House to know the facts, and to review the position before those changes become operative in law. Before I sit down I have a further piece of evidence to bring before the House in reference to the state of feeling in India, and it is a feeling expressed by native and English newspaper editors in connection with these proposed changes. I will only refer very briefly to one or two extracts. We will take, first of all, the

    1073
    Statesman, of Calcutta, which is edited by an Englishman. It condemns in the strongest terms the proposed extension of Section 109 of the Criminal Procedure Code to editors and newspapers. It says—
    "It would place in the hands of the Executive an engine of control over the Press of the most formidable description, and one which in many cases might be so used as completely to stifle free discussion."
    The Morning Post, also edited by an Englishman, says—
    "If this fantastic, so-called amendment of the law of sedition ever comes into force it will be practically impossible to conduct a newspaper in India on anything approaching journalistic lines. We are face to face with what, in effect, is a Press Stifling Act, and we trust there will be a prompt and universal awakening to this very evident fact."
    There is only one further piece of evidence I desire to quote. It is the evidence of the feeling expressed by the Englishman, which is a leading journal which was a warm supporter of the Bill at first, but has now turned round, and is now stronger in its condemnation than the other newspapers. It says—
    "The Forward policy persisted in despite of every dissuasion, and, culminating in disaster and ridicule, exhausted public patience, and neither Lord Salisbury nor Lord Elgin can afford another blunder, or overlook the cry that repressive and unnecessary legislation is being countenanced here."
    It seems to me that I have made it perfectly clear what the opinion of the newspaper editors in India is in reference to this Bill, and my desire now is to ask the House of Commons also to realise the state of things, and to express its views upon it. It seems to me, in conclusion, that the great principle—one of the great principles, at all events—upon which the Indian Government has in the past travelled along the path of progress has been abandoned, and the effect of this, in my judgment, will be undoubtedly to create discontent where discontent did not exist before; to produce the impression that the principles
    1074
    which have dominated our rule in the past are no longer to do so; and to make it difficult for the people of India, in the face of present facts, to look forward to the attainment, upon constitutional lines, of those reforms to which the lesson of English civilisation and English education has taught them to set their minds. I desire to move the Amendment standing in my name.
    SIR JOHN LENG: I beg leave to second the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words—
    "And we humbly assure Your Majesty that this House regards with grave concern the policy of internal repression lately adopted by the Government of India, and especially the deportation and continued imprisonment of British Indian subjects without trial, the recent series of Press Prosecutions, and the present proposals to increase the severity of the Law relating to sedition in India."—(Mr. Herbert Roberts.)
    *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: The hon. Gentleman has introduced this subject in an able and very temperate speech, and he has called the attention of the House to a matter which is well worthy of their attention. I will endeavour to reply in the manner and tone which the hon. Gentleman has adopted, and I shall endeavour to give some conclusive reasons for the action which the Government of India and the Government of Bombay have been compelled to take during the last few months. Now, Sir, the hon. Gentleman assumes that the Government of India has resorted to, and developed, a policy of repression and coercion. There is really no such intention. It is very easy for hon. Gentlemen here to find fault with a Government—with an authority sitting at the other end of the world—in the secure atmosphere of the House of Commons; but let the Gentlemen who find fault with the Bombay Government transplant themselves to Bombay. I think that one

    1075
    of the best descriptions of India ever given was that given by Sir John Malcolm, who, after having been congratulated upon the quiet state of the country, replied—"Yes, India is quiet; as quiet as gunpowder." Any hon. Gentleman who has had any acquaintance with India knows perfectly well that there is stored up in that country a great deal of explosive material in the shape of racial hatred and religious animosity, which, at any moment, may explode, and it is, therefore, essential that the Government of the country should have behind it, for the purpose of dealing promptly with such emergencies some exceptional powers; though it is, of course, absolutely necessary that these exceptional powers should be used with the utmost caution, and only under very exceptional circumstances. Now, Sir, what had the Government of Bombay to deal with? They had to deal with the plague, which is not yet stamped out. The hon. Gentleman, I think, will admit that I am not exaggerating at all if I say that, if the regulations of the Bombay Government for dealing with the plague were rendered ineffective either by local feeling or by organised disaffection, and if, in consequence, the plague got the upper hand of the authorities, that that would cause more devastation and more loss of life than the invasion of a hostile army. Therefore the Government have a clear and paramount work to perform, and if clear and indis-deal with? They had to deal with the authorities that certain persons, whether in high or low stations, are traitors and obstructing the efforts made to combat and stamp out the plague, the Government are bound to act and deal with such persons accordingly, who are practically carrying on a war against this great Empire. It is in the interests of the peace of India that the Government should act promptly. Supposing in time of war it was proved that there was a traitor in the camp, would anybody
    1076
    hesitate for a moment about curtailing his liberty of speech or action? The Bombay Government, in the campaign against the plague, were just in that position, for they had clear and indisputable evidence brought before them that as regards these outrages, the first as regards these outrages. The first point I come to, dealt with by the hon. Member, was the imprisonment of the Brothers Natu. Now, for some time past, as all acquainted with the country know, there has been a great deal of disturbance in connection with the action of the Government in the Deccan. There have been attempts to organise opposition, the movement has obviously been seditious in its character, and in almost every case this movement could be traced back, not only to Poona, but finally to a very limited section of persons in that town. Now, Sir, so long as the Indian or Bombay Government had to deal with an ordinary state of affairs it was not necessary for the authorities to take special notice of what unquestionably has now proved to be a small, but well organised, conspiracy in Poona. But when the Government had to deal with the plague the situation assumed a different aspect. The hon. Gentleman assumes that the Brothers Natu were of great assistance to the Bombay Government, and I noticed that that assumption was acquiesced in by certain Gentlemen opposite; but that is not the opinion of the authorities. The Brothers Natu, in the opinion of the authorities, did everything in their power to stir up unrest and to work against the regulations, the enforcement of which alone could save the people from the plague. After the murder of Mr. Rand and Lieutenant Ayerst, a more close inquiry was made into the circumstances, and a number of facts were brought to the notice of the Government concerning a very serious plot. At that time it was doubted whether Mr. Rand's murder was the result of organised opposition to the Government, but there is no doubt now of the existence of a serious plot. If there was an idea among the Native population that, under the British regulations

    1077
    their women would be subjected to any indignity a storm would have arisen which would have made it hopeless to apply the regulations. Therefore, in order to inspire confidence, the first essential was to secure and take out, if possible, a sufficient number of trained nurses and doctors to accompany the search parties; and, after some difficulty, a sufficient number of professional nurses were secured, who gave up their positions here to run the risks of fighting the plague. We had considerable difficulty in getting them, but we were eventually successful, and they came. One of those nurses made a deposition, in which she said she had received a letter, signed by one of the brothers, pointing out that it would be to her detriment, if she joined and worked with a search party. She, however, served with the search parties, and the result was she lost the whole of her private practice. One of the difficulties which the Indian Government had to meet was the difficulty of coping with influences of this malign character, while it had no law at its disposal to prevent intimidation of the description. Now, I come to a more serious instance. The House will recollect last year, after attention was called to the murder of Mr. Rand, that a number of documents were circulated, bringing a charge of a very serious nature against, the troops who formed the search parties. Those statements were all proved to be false. We telegraphed at once to the Bombay Government, and we received a complete repudiation of the statements from Lord Sandhurst, the Governor of Bombay. A gentleman named Professor Ghokalee made a statement in this country to the effect that a woman had been violated by the soldiers engaged in the search parties, but on his return to India, after communicating with his friends in the Bombay Presidency, he most unequivocally withdrew his statement, and said it was false. While this report was being spread in this country, the Bombay Government reported that one of the brothers Natu had attempted in a most assiduous way to induce the police to declare that a woman who had really died from disease had been violated by a British soldier, and had died in consequence. If the Natus, as a whole, had not remained loyal, and accepted these
    1078
    suggestions as true, there would have been started a commotion throughout the province that it would have been difficult to repress. Well, now, I say, if you find these tricks played—I do not care who the men are—the Government are within their right to prevent those responsible for them being at large. In dealing with a crisis like that of the plague, there is no alternative, and the Government very reluctantly came to the conclusion to exercise their powers. Lord Sandhurst was ready to bear the responsibility for having taken the initiative. The Viceroy took immense care in looking into this question, and sent that most practised civilian of his Council, Sir James Woodburn, to Bombay, to investigate it; and it was eventually considered necessary to arrest these two men—an action which had my full approval. Now, as regards the two gentlemen themselves, although they are under detention, it is of a light character; they are allowed to eat what they like. I believe I heard of one of them taking bicycling exercise; but so long as the plague remains, it will not be safe to allow them to be at large. Now, with regard to the other two points, in which the action of the Government is stated to be unjust, I will deal first with the trial of certain gentlemen connected with the Press. I do not understand that anybody will contend that, because a gentleman is connected with the Press he is not amenable to the law; or that if he incites people to commit murder, he is not to be tried. Mr. Tilak, in his articles clearly incited assassination. We are extremely sorry that a man of his station in life and position should be in prison, but this was not his first conviction, as I understand, on a charge of a criminal libel of a very serious character. He has been sentenced by the Court of Law, and I am not prepared to interfere with the discretion of the Government of Bombay, and suggest to them that his term of imprisonment shall terminate. With regard to the proposed alterations in the law, successive Secretaries of State and Viceroys for 18 years past have admitted that the particular clause, relating to sedition, should be remodelled. In the recent case of the trial of Tilak, the interpretations put upon it by the judge who tried the case were confirmed by the Bombay High Court, and assented to, and confirmed by

    1079
    the Privy Council. All that has been done is to put in plain and unambiguous language the interpretation to Section 124A of the old code. The only other alterations are certain changes proposed in the Criminal Procedure Bill, which is an amending and consolidating Bill of 500 or 600 clauses, and in which a power is given to magistrates to deal with sedition-mongers and blackmailers, which is very much wanted in India. In these cases, however, there is the safeguard of an appeal to the Court above, and the consent of the Local Government must be obtained before the clause is put into operation. Although the hon. Member has quoted the opinions of certain newspapers in regard to this, I do not believe that the great mass of native gentlemen, or of educated opinion, is opposed to the measure. On the contrary, Mahomedans of Calcutta, who represent Mahomedism in its best form, approve of what has been done, and I know from conversations with distinguished men who have come over from India that strong opinions are entertained on the attitude of the native Press, an attitude which native gentlemen look on with the utmost regret, because they say that what is called here the tolerance of the Indian Government in regard to seditious writings is interpreted by natives there as an act of approval. I can assure hon. Gentlemen that we have not the slightest intention or wish to silence the Indian Press. If hon. Gentlemen had to read—as it is part of my duty to read—translations from the vernacular Press, they would see there is the utmost freedom in censuring anything English. What I believe is wanted in India is not so much restraint as guidance. I believe that these alterations of the law will be in every sense beneficial, and I can guarantee that as long as I have anything to do with it, the law shall be administered with the utmost leniency. The Bills are now under the consideration of the Indian Legislative Council, who have certain duties to perform, and I think it is inadvisable now to discuss the details of the Measures, because it is obvious that the effect of such discussion must be to influence, and perhaps prejudice those who have to perform an impartial duty as Members of the Indian Legislature.
    1080
    After they have forwarded their opinions to the Secretary of State with whom rests ultimately the responsibility of allowing or disallowing the changes in the law, the documents shall, if anybody wishes, be made public, and that would constitute a proper and legitimate opportunity for discussing the subject.
    MR. J. M. MACLEAN: Will the noble Lord do that before giving his assent to the passing of the Bill?
    *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: That would be transferring to the House of Commons a responsibility that now rests upon the Secretary of State, and I do not think that that would be right. I think I have fully answered the speech of the hon. Gentleman, I assure him I am in entire sympathy with the sentiments he has expressed as regards the crisis through which India is passing, and I do hope we are now approaching an epoch of comparative quiet and prosperity. The Bombay Government have shown great courage in facing the responsibility which rests upon them. Their duty has been to devote all their energies to the extirpation of a horrible disease, and so long as the House know they honestly and courageously perform that duty and utilise the means at their disposal with propriety and caution it will not be disposed to censure that Government.
    MR. MACNEILL: I have come to the conclusion that the term "corrupt," which we apply to the British Government in Ireland, is equally applicable, on the noble Lord's own showing, to the British Government in India. Let us take the case of the Brothers Natu. They have already been subjected to six months' rigorous imprisonment, and have been deported without the slightest shadow of justification or excuse. There is no law on the matter at all. When was it that these brothers became so objectionable to the Government? Is the noble Lord aware that in March the elder Natu was solicited by the Bombay Government to become a member of the Committee at Poona? I have here an Indian paper which taunts the Government with imprisoning these men, and with not having the courage to bring them to trial even by their own independent tribunal. It

    1081
    says the general belief in India that the brothers were arrested and deported in order that they might not be able to publish information as to the measures actually adopted to stamp out the plague. The noble Lord knows how hon. Friends and myself, day after day, asked him questions last Session with reference to the plague regulations, and reference to the doings of British soldiers, and how he avoided them and gave us the least possible information consistently with Parliamentary courtesy. I never heard until now any authoritative statement as to the Natu's doings. I gather he is reported to have told something to a soldier in a temper, who passed the information on to somebody else, and then there comes something not good enough for Ireland—the evidence of a nurse whose name even is not mentioned. Thus, on evidence which was mere tittle-tattle, two respectable gentlemen of considerable means have this horrible and abominable outrage perpetrated upon them. Let us consider what this outrage is. These men have not only been imprisoned, but their realty and personal property has been seized, and some lakhs of rupees belonging to them have gone into the coffers of the Government.
    *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: No.
    MR. MACNEILL: Then I suppose they have been given back in view of this discussion, for they have been there six months at least. Let us see how this thing works. In India, in the ownership of property there is a considerable community of interests; there is generally a large partnership, and in this particular case these brothers were only partners, or co-owners with a third person, who has been left a beggar, and has not a single farthing. The whole of the partnership stock has been taken by the Government, and I should like to know how that is to be justified. We have no more right to it than I have to the watch in the noble Lord's pocket. We hear a good deal now about the exercise of leniency and the granting of every kind of indulgence: will the House believe that both these men were refused legal assistance, and have not been allowed, since July last, to communicate with their own legal man? These things cannot be denied. Then, again, as to the
    1082
    allowances made to these men out of their own money: the elder man was only allowed about £15 per month, and the younger man about £12. They are well-known high-class Brahmins. They were not permitted to have a cook to prepare their food; probably the idea of the authorities was to make them lose caste. It was not until the prisoners prepared their own food that they gave way, and the services of a cook were allowed. We hear much of constitutional liberty, and of the benefits the English say they confer on India; this is a pretty specimen of constitutional rights and liberties, for men to be taken from home without a moment's warning, put into a dungeon, and kept there a long time. Even now the noble Lord does not make the slightest pretence of saying there is even a remote possibility of their being liberated. I do not know of anything approaching this procedure in any English Colony, or, indeed, in any country. I do not think such a thing was done in this country even in the time of the Stuarts. Reasons of State have been given by the noble Lord; but what he thinks is good enough to convince the House of Commons that these men ought not to have their liberty, would not secure a conviction before the commonest of common juries in this country, or even in Ireland, where justice is dependent on the Government, and where the administrators of it do their work with their eyes on the Treasury Bench. I say distinctly that the prosecution of Tilak was initiated, in the first instance, by the Government at home.
    *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: That is not so. The prosecution was instituted by the Bombay Government.
    MR. MACNEILL: This is a matter upon which I shall show the noble Lord something. His recollection is as hazy upon this as it was a few evenings back upon the Indian Loan Question. Let us consider how these things go, because dates are essential in matters of this kind. The articles upon which Tilak was arrested, and upon which this prosecution was instituted, and upon which he was sentenced to 18 months' rigorous imprisonment on the 15th September last, appeared in Tilak's paper on the 15th June. After the articles had

    1083
    appeared, so far from Tilak being prosecuted by the Bombay Government, he was elected a member of the Legislative Council at Bombay, and Lord Sandhurst did not veto his nomination.
    *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I say here that the hon. Member is not right. The prosecution was initiated by the Bombay Government.
    MR. MACNEILL: I shall make no inferences. I shall state facts, and I shall leave the House to draw inferences. Again, I say, the dates are all-important and vital in reference to this matter. On 15th July, 1897, when the mails came from India, and when there should have been a full report of this speech, and article upon which Tilak was arrested, questions were put to the noble Lord by the Member for Bethnal Green in reference to the Poonah outrages, and among them the following—
    "Whether he is aware that Gungadhur Tilak, the editor of the Mahratta and Kesari newspapers, presided at the celebration, and made a speech, in which he counselled the murder of Europeans, and that the malachchas (that is the British) had no charter from God to rule India. Lord G. HAMILTON: I am aware that an annual festival has recently been established in commemoration of Shivajee. I have seen a newspaper report of certain speeches made at the festival, which took place last month, and it supports the description given in the second and third paragraphs of the Question. The question as to the connection between public incitements to violence and crime is occupying the attention both of the Government of India and of the Government of Bombay, but I am not prepared at present to make any statement on the subject."
    But he had condemned Tilak's articles from that Table himself, as calculated to incite to disturbance, and before Tilak was arrested, or before there was any chance of his being arrested. A month afterwards, in answer to a "put-up" question by one of his own friends, he condemned Tilak from that Table. I am sure the noble Lord will not take it that I am deliberately contradicting his words, but my recollection is very clear upon this matter. When I asked some questions in reference to these prosecutions myself, an hon. Member asked a separate question, whether these things were done "on the advice of the Indian Government," and the noble Lord said "Yes, amid the loud cheers of his own supporters.
    1084
    On 26th July the Natus were arrested, and on the following day Tilak, whom the noble Lord had prejudged from that Table. Tilak was tried on 15th September, and after a four days' trial was sentenced to what the judge called eighteen months' "rigorous imprisonment." It is supposed that the jury, such as it was, was unanimously in Tilak's favour. No. All the English jurors pronounced him guilty, but all the native jurors not guilty. Then we come to the charge by the judge, and I say that that charge was the most extraordinary and unnatural that any judge could deliver upon these matters. Judges in India are not independent; they are removable, like the magistrates in Ireland. I shall speak very briefly in reference to the Press laws. The noble Lord stated that he had read, day after day, the comments of the native Press of India in reference to this matter, but he scarcely seemed to realise what a condemnation of his Government they were. I endorse, in the House of Commons, Tilak's expression, that England had no charter from God Almighty to rule India; I endorse that with all my heart and soul. Now, changes are being made in the Press laws in India, with which we in Ireland are perfectly familiar. Ireland is governed at present by the force of the bayonet, and the English system, all over the world, is that when she is able she destroys the weak, but she crouches before the strong. With regard to the provision about "want of affection towards the British Government," I wonder how many of the Indian people, whom you have starved, and whom this Government has plundered, are acquainted with that affection. I do not think the word should be applied to your rule in India. It is only proper that the statements which have been made with regard to the blessing to India of Government by the British Parliament should be refuted upon this floor, and that the natives who are so scourged by British administration should know that they have friends here who sympathise with them.
    MR. J. M. MACLEAN: I had not intended to take part in this Debate, and I should be extremely reluctant to say anything which will add, in the slightest degree, to the very heavy anxiety and responsibility which must have weighed

    1085
    down the Secretary of State for India during the last 12 months; and I certainly do not intend to follow the hon. Gentlemen opposite in the discussion of the general merits of British rule in India. Of British rule in India I have always been a hearty admirer, and I believe it has conferred inestimable benefits on that country. When the hon. Member denounces British rule in India, I would like to ask him what remedy he would substitute—what kind of rule he would substitute—if British rule were taken away? I have, for many years myself been connected with the Press of India, and I think it would be unworthy of me if, when a question of this sort is brought up, I did not express my own opinion upon it. The noble Lord has said that they want exceptional powers in India. My own opinion is that we have exceptional powers enough in India already. You must remember that there is no kind of representative Government in India. The Press is the only outlet by which any kind of public opinion can find expression. As a general rule, I do not believe that that Press is extremely violent or unfair in the comments it makes on the Government of the country. Of course, however, extravagant things are said from time to time; but the native Press is an immature Press, directed often by men of small means, and often of small intelligence, and may do vicious things from time to time; but the Government possesses ample power for dealing with offences that kind. Is it not the fact that the sentences lately passed on offenders connected with the Press have been sufficiently severe in themselves to punish any offences that have been committed, and to frighten others from a repetition of those offences? I think some of those sentences have been so severe that they have shocked public opinion in this country; yet we are now going to have repressive legislation again directed against Indian newspapers. Lord Lytton tried a similar experiment, though not of so severe a kind as is now intended. It was, as the noble Lord explained to-night, an experiment only to give a guiding influence, to lead the native newspapers into a right direction; but that law broke down, because newspapers which were directed into the proper course, which were not allowed to
    1086
    express their own opinions, became thoroughly worthless. The only object of the existence of a newspaper is to express free opinion, and naturally that law of Lord Lytton fell into great contempt, and was discontinued with the general assent of the whole community. But now, what is intended is a very different matter indeed. We are going to make the law much more repressive than it is at the present moment; we are going to crystallise into law the opinion expressed by Mr. Justice Strachey as to the meaning of a clause in the public code. That Judge said—
    "You must not only obey the laws of the country, but you must also be well affected towards the Government, and affectionate in, your disposition."
    Well, I think a wise Government ought to be satisfied with commanding the obedience of hundreds of millions of people without trying to control their secret thoughts. What would be thought by many of us in this country if we were compelled to be affectionate towards those in authority? We look up with reverence in this House to gentlemen sitting upon the two Front Benches. It was an ideal of Plato that there was some degree of perfection in the government of a State when all the people were inspired by feelings of affection for their rulers. I have always thought that Plato must have had some premonition of the two Front Benches of the British House of Commons. But, supposing right hon. Gentlemen on the two Front Benches were not to rest satisfied with making their followers go into the Lobbies at the crack of the Party whip, but were also to tell hon. Members that they were not to express their own views in the House, or out of it, then hon. Gentlemen, would very soon feel that their presence in the House was not of much use, either to the public or to themselves. I believe we are going to have, if this law is passed, a suppression of all kinds of free expression of opinion in India. Does the Government imagine for a moment that by muzzling the Press they can put down disaffection? Why, India is one great whispering gallery, in which everything is communicated from mouth to mouth with the utmost celerity! Do you think you would repress public opinion by muzzling the newspapers? You would

    1087
    have to abolish their Universities, stop the running of their trains, cut the telegraph wires, and prevent people communicating their opinions to one another in languages of which you are yourselves utterly ignorant. The task is an impossible one. Let the Government have a little more courage, a, little more belief in the power and resources of the English people to put down any disaffection that may arise. Do not let us have this legislation in a panic, this attempt to repress public opinion by means which will never avail in any country. You can govern India by your justice and your generosity, and, in case of need, by force of arms, but you will never govern it by preventing the free expression of opinion among that great community.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: The noble Lord commenced his speech by asking our sympathy for the Government of Bombay. Now, to that appeal I think we should all respond; but when the noble Lord emphasises the circumstances of difficulty and of danger in which the Government of Bombay is involved, it is only fair, I think, and reasonable to point out, upon the other side, that all history shows that it is precisely such circumstances of difficulty and danger which are likely to carry the Government from a panic into action which, having the object of escaping danger, often leads to a position much more dangerous. I was not at all impressed by the grounds which the noble Lord gave the House for the action which the Government has taken with regard to the Natus; and if that is all he has to say in the way of information, I cannot but think it would have been better if he had remained silent altogether about those grounds. Those grounds which the noble Lord has given us are only two, but I assume that we may do the noble Lord justice to assume that he has given us the strongest grounds he could. What are the two grounds? They are these: First, a statement made after the arrest of the Natus by a woman, whose name was not given; and, secondly, evidence—it is hardly to be dignified with the name of evidence—a story which I think every
    1088
    Member of this House heard with suspicion, about the dead body of a woman being found, and that the Natus had endeavoured to swear that she had committed suicide. I can only repeat that it would have been better if those were the only grounds. I would like to say a word or two with regard to the proposed changes in the law of sedition. My first complaint is that this legislation is being hurried through the Legislative Council with indecent haste, and in face of the protests of the most distinguished of the native members. While I am upon this point, I say that the noble Lord—no doubt unconsciously—has made a statement which is certainly misleading. He has given the House to understand that these proposals had been before India since last October, but, as a matter of fact, so far as the two most obnoxious of the proposals are concerned—in my opinion, and in the opinion of the natives of India—they were not in the provisional draft at all, and have only been heard of since the middle of December. It was not until the 21st September that Mr. Chalmers spoke in the Legislative Council, but nobody in India, nor, I believe, in England, knew anything about the proposals. I think it would only have been gracious to make some response to two very earnest appeals which were made in the Legislative Council by two very distinguished native gentlemen. Now, the noble Lord has repeated to-night what Mr. Chalmers said in the Legislative Council, that these changes only reproduced in India the law of sedition as it exists in England. To that statement I respectfully give an absolute denial, and I am glad that the Leader of the English bar is in his place on the opposite side of the House. I can hardly think that the learned Attorney General will contend for a moment that the new 124 (a) Section is really equivalent to, or reproduces, the law of England with regard to sedition. It is idle to set out what Lord Kenyon said more than 100 years ago, and to pretend that that represents the present English law as to sedition. You must refer to much more recent judicial deliverances in order to ascertain what the law is; and I say fearlessly that the charges of judges in modern times show that at this time of day the gist of sedition is, an intention to incite to public disturbance or to resist the authority of the Government.

    1089
    Well, now, what are you going to do in India? You are going to give power to decide these questions of sedition to a Magistrate in the first instance. To many minds, to impartial men both in England and in India, that is most objectionable, and the opinions of some of the highest authorities in India have been produced against a union of administrative and judicial functions in the same person. Yet you are now proposing a most odious extension of that system. You are proposing to give to the very officer whose policy has been criticised, and, it may be, with perfect propriety, somewhat severely accused, power to be the judge in his own case. The learned Attorney General said, across the floor a few moments ago, that there was to be an appeal. Yes, Sir, and I am glad to accept that statement that there is to be an appeal; but it is not an appeal to a jury, but to another judge, or to another set of judges; and even in the Court of Appeal you will still leave the defendant to bear the harassment, and the expense, and the trouble to which he has been subjected by the original prosecution. Then, Sir, there is one other item of change in the code of criminal procedure to which I should like to refer; and it is that power is taken to bind over editors to give security for their good behavious for 12 months. Now, I believe, so far as my reading of the opinions of the Natives is concerned, that this has been the cause probably of more mistakes and alarm than any other of the new regulations of Section 109. I will just read the side-note of that Section, because I think it is very significant, and may really save us from further comment upon its character. The side-note to the Section of the Code is as follows: "Security for good behaviour from vagrants and suspected persons." And you are actually going to bring editors and journalists in India under that Section which has, heretofore, been applied, I believe, only to the lowest of the criminal classes, and for which there is a very odious precedent in the oppressive use which was made of the Act of Edward the Third in the coercive period of Irish history. And, Sir, I am not at all reassured by the observation which Mr. Chalmers, who, I think, is the legal member, made when
    1090
    he introduced this provision. I would ask the learned Attorney General to be good enough to listen to these two or three lines of what Mr. Chalmers said when he introduced it. He said that in most cases in which a prosecution would be required it would be sufficient to give them—that is, the editors—an effective warning to discontinue their illegal practices; and he added: "And we think that the machinery we have devised will operate as an effective warning." Yes, Sir, I dare say it will operate as an effective warning, but in what position will it place the Press in India? You will have this right of prosecution perpetually hanging over them, and you will have what has hitherto been a free Press, a shackled Press in India, with the editors having before their eyes the fear of these binding and oppressive sections being enforced for any line which they may take. Of course, the noble Lord may give his sanction to this Measure, as was done to the Vernacular Press Act of India. It was, indeed, different in the letter from this Measure, but this Measure, I believe, in its spirit, and in its effect, will produce consequences very similar to those of the Vernacular Press Act. And for this reason: The English journalists are, I should say, almost exclusively in the Presidency towns, where they will be able to be tried by a jury; but the Native Pressmen are scattered all over India, and in parts of the country where they will not have the privilege of trial by jury, and where, therefore, they will be almost absolutely at the disposal of the very men whose policy they may have been criticising. Sir, the noble Lord may pass this Act, but when the noble Lord has done so I think it will be the duty of his successors to repeal this Measure exactly as the Liberal Government in 1881 or 1882 repealed the Vernacular Press Act of India.
    DR. G. B. CLARK: I have listened with the greatest possible astonishment to the statements of the noble Lord regarding the reasons which the Government of India had for deporting and imprisoning the brothers Natus, because I took part in the Debate which we had last August on the question, and

    1091
    we then heard a part of the case. Since that statement was made a great deal has occurred. The noble Lord told us, in August last year, that there was a conspiracy in India, in Poona, and that the result was that two persons had been murdered, but that now that they had been able to put two men in prison, they would be able to unravel the plot of the conspiracy which had been brought about. Since then, the murderers have been captured, and one of them has confessed, and both of them have been tried and sentenced. But now nothing has been said about the men whom the noble Lord told this House he believed were the instigators and the leaders of the plot—the men who found the money, and whom it was necessary to remove and to take possession of their property. His tone to-day is entirely different from his tone six or seven months ago, when we last discussed this question. Let us see how we stand. In the first place, the noble Lord has been silent. My hon. Friend below me on these Benches pointed out the illegal action of the Bombay Government, but the noble Lord did not utter a word regarding it, or the letter he wrote lately to my hon. Friend the hon. Baronet the Member for Banffshire (Sir W. Wedderburn), and which appears in to-day's papers, admitting that the Government, having done illegal things, had handed back the property which they had illegally taken away. He has not apologised for the act of the Government—he has not regretted the illegal action of the Bombay Government in reference to the matter. Not a single word has been said by the noble Lord; and here we are in this position. I ask him if he does not admit that the Bombay Government acted illegally? I hope the Attorney General, if he speaks, will take a different course altogether, and give us further information, because it seems to me that the whole course of the Bombay Government has been entirely illegal under various Statutes, as well as under the original Act. You have got to apply these Statutes under three conditions. What are they? I do not know whether the Attorney-General has got the Statute, but I have it here. There is first prescribed anything affecting the due maintenance of any alliance formed by the
    1092
    British Government with foreign Powers. But the Natus were not intriguing with Russia. No charge of that kind has been made, and whatever charge is made cannot apply to the first heading. The second apples to the preservation of tranquillity in the territories of the noble Princes entitled to our protection; but the brothers had never so intrigued, and they never have been brought under that section. Then the last section relates to the security of the British domimons from foreign hostility and from internal commotion; but the Attorney-General will not say there has been any danger from internal commotion in what they have done. The fact is, that one of them was one of the Poona Commissioners, and went round to see how the regulations as to checking the plague were conducted. I have very much sympathy with those who took this course in Poona. I know how stupid the Indian people are in matters of this kind, in regard to measures necessary for stopping these painful diseases. Because of their ignorance and superstition, so much work was thrown upon the Bombay Government that I have every sympathy with that Government in their efforts to check this terrible plague. If it could have been shown that either of the brothers Natus attempted to prevent the carrying out of these necessary measures of sanitary precaution, then I should have been glad to have seen a severe punishment inflicted; but what are the facts? There may have been a good deal of lying, for we know what Party spirit is, and we see now in France, in reference to the Dreyfus case, men, many of them of high position, are making statements to show, at least, that one or another must have a very bad memory. There was the true solution for these charges. Many cases brought against the Sirdar may be inaccurate, but I know of one case. I saw a letter in the Bombay Guardian, which mentioned an Indian woman, as intelligent a lady as you could meet in any part of the world, and a philanthropist, carrying on the splendid work of female education in India. In this instance, a girl was missing, and did not come back to her home. This lady went to the hospital, and was told that the girl had died, but by-and-by she

    1093
    found that the girl had been seduced, and became a prostitute, and was then taken into a bazaar. The lady then went in to look after the girl. This is a case upon the evidence of a lady who is respected by all who know her, and the Bombay Guardian has never denied those facts, but tried to extenuate them. Here are two men who have been taken from their homes, on the ground that they are causing a riot, but there is no evidence at all to that effect. As far as I can see, no evidence has been brought forward by the Bombay Government, nor the noble Lord to-day, in support of these arrests. Then there is the case of some Indians who subscribed to a gymnasium. Is a gymnasium an illegal association? Directly after the arrest, a nurse made an affidavit that her practice had been lost through this arrest. She had a very fair practice, and was doing very well. Lastly, we have the story of the police insinuating that certain girls had been violated. These are the facts put forward by the noble Lord as a reason why the Indian Government have deported these men under the Act. The authorities arbitrarily took these people away, but by-and-by they had to reconsider what they had done, and take legal advice, but they could not make restitution for wrong done. I do not say as to the two brothers that they should do so, but I think they should have done so to their family, which has been put to very great inconvenience indeed. Now, you have taken these two men under the Act. This Act is really a police measure. It is an Act, under which princes can be deported, and their land taken possession of. You have used this Act for merely police purposes. I hope to hear something more from the noble Lord, but that is the case as it stands, and I think that if this House were a Court of Appeal, and if you go, as it were, to the Court of Appeal, I think you would find that you have no right to condemn unless proper evidence has been given. As the noble Lord tells us, this Measure is a new policy, because there had been a period of fanaticism in India. If that is so, I say the Government is responsible for it; it is a necessary result of your policy. My Friend the Member for Cardiff, representing
    1094
    Indian journalism, has protested strongly against your reactionary, repressive legislation in India. In reply to the noble Lord, he said this Bill is not approved by any person except lunatics. I observe that a meeting was held last night of the Indian Defence Association, where the Sheriff was in the chair, showing that Indian opinion is against the Bill. These men were met together for the purpose of protesting against the policy of the present Government, shown by their action and their speech. The noble Lord appeals to the so-called members of the Congress of Educated People in India. The educated people in India have been created, and they are the result of the training of our Universities. You have given them this desire for freedom and for self-government, and because they are requiring reforms you oppose them. This opposition has been shown from time to time from these Benches. What do these people ask for? Simply that you should carry out the promise made by the Queen in her Proclamation. I will give you the words of the Proclamation, but I will only read one sentence—
    "It is our will that as far as may be our subjects, of whatever race or creed, be freely and impartially educated for duties for which they are qualified by their education."
    What is the cause of this bad feeling in India? Simply that the powers and functions of the Indian judges should be extended to the provinces of India. You may pass a Law of Sedition; you may do all you can to increase the power of the priesthood; you may increase the power of the judges; but to attempt to gag the Press will be what you attempted before—namely, to drive that vehicle by means of which the educated classes can bring their views before their Rulers. You may try that 100—or it may be 1,000—times, but it will never succeed. If the prisoners had been unjustly condemned, perhaps they would have a reward like some of my hon. Friends from Ireland, in being returned to a seat in Parliament.
    *MR. M. DAVITT: My hon. Friend who has just sat down has illustrated to the House the truth

    1095
    of the saying that his countrymen are not constitutionally capable of seeing a joke. Sir, speaking for myself, I rather take this view: That Membership of this House is a continuation of a punishment not too richly deserved, and I frequently sigh, while sitting helpless on these Benches, for the days when, instead of vainly trying to make laws, I might have built up a lasting reputation in Dartmoor as a stonebreaker. Mr. Speaker, I venture to say that the manly and straightforward statements spoken a short time ago by the Member for Cardiff, if given effect to in India, would be more beneficial to your rule there, and better for the people in that country, than the pro-Russian views expressed by the noble Lord which now obtain there. I venture to say that when the proceedings of this afternoon are published to-morrow morning, the consensus of opinion of Great Britain and Ireland will be in favour of the views of the Member for Cardiff, and not those of the Secretary for India. The noble Lord, this evening, began what was for him a very temperate speech, by asking us to transfer ourselves from the atmosphere of this House to that of Bombay, in order to appreciate the difficulties of Indian Administration. If we do transport ourselves, what do we find? We find a criminal warfare being raged against people who have never even imagined any injury to the rights of the people of Great Britain, and we find 200,000,000 vegetarians being taxed on their salt in order to defray the costs of this criminal war. Then we have the Press gag there, and we are dealing tonight with the cases of prominent men who are taken without trial and sent to prison. I ask the hon. Members in this House—Englishmen—if they would expect to find anything else, if instead of your rule there your traditional bogey were realised, and Russia administered India instead of yourselves. I say the policy you are carrying out would be more worthy of the despotism of Russia than of the constitutional liberty of the English people. The noble Lord, in his speech, told us that all the trouble in the Bombay Government was practically traceable to Poona. The noble Lord must have a strong prejudice against Poona. He has said there was evidence enough to satisfy him
    1096
    that the Natus brothers were connected with conspiracies, which brought about a deplorable murder. If the noble Lord's subordinates have evidence against these two brothers, a conviction upon trial would be absolutely certain. My conclusion is that these men have not been put upon their trial because there was nothing but suspicion against them, and I venture to say that justice ought to deal with facts and not with insinuations. With reference to the case against these two men, as presented by the noble Lord to-night, it would, if submitted to an English jury, be scouted in any part of Great Britain; and I venture to say that you ought not to attempt in India what you would not attempt in England. The noble Lord has talked about the tone of native Press opinion, and he has been, I think, answered successfully by the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff. It appears that the chief offence of the Press in India consists of the fact that it does not feel affection for the noble Lord. I think, if want of affection for English rule is shown in India as in Ireland (a country I know something about), you would have to build a good many prisons, in that country. Sir, in my opinion no language that I have read in any of the letters and newspapers of India has been so incendiary as the language used in this House by the noble Lord the Secretary for India. Last night, for no reason whatever, the noble Lord attacked a man who had been Governor-General of India——
    *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I did not attack him.
    MR. DAVITT: I repeat that the noble Lord did do so. Of course, the noble Lord fills, owing to his position, a great place in the imagination of the Indian people, and any words spoken by him in this House will, of course, have a totally different meaning to that people from the meaning which they convey to us. Well, the noble Lord went so far in this House last year as to charge, or, at least, inferentially charge, Mr. Tilak with incenting to murder, even before that gentleman was arrested; and I say that is contrary, not only to our sense of justice, but also to the ordinary canons of fair play. Then,

    1097
    again, the noble Lord referred, a few nights ago, to the people of the North-West Frontier, who are gallantly and rightly struggling for their independence as hereditary robbers: while last night he went out of his way, âpropos to nothing at all, to attack a man who is known in India as having been your representative—your Governor General in the country at one time——
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I did not attack him.
    MR. DAVITT: If the noble Lord had not to deal with 300,000,000 of people in an Eastern country—people with a vivid imagination—he might at tack Lord Ripon to his heart's content, and it would matter nothing; but the Indian people, when they find him attacking in this House, as I insist he did——
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! It is not in order to discuss a speech made in a previous Debate on a different question.
    MR. DAVITT: I at once accept your ruling, Sir, the more willingly as I am really an admirer of the noble Lord, if he will allow me to say so. His fighting qualities appeal to my imagination, for they come from a race to which I belong, while the imperfections in his character come from another race, who are made intemperate by the possession of too much authority. If, once more, he will allow me to say so, I should be very unwilling to do him an injustice, for, though I differ entirely from his policy in India, I am bound to say that he knows how to fight his corner as well as any man in this House. One word more in conclusion in the shape of an appeal for an extension of information in connection with the murder of the two officers at Poona. On the 3rd of this month I read in the Press the following statement, which has not been referred to in the Debate so far. The man who confessed to the murder of one of these officers, and who is now lying under sentence of execution, has stated, according to this Press report, that a certain superintendent had deceived him, having promised 20,000 rupees to erect a temple in his name, and the employment of his
    1098
    brother in the police. That is to me a very suspicious statement, and I sincerely hope that the noble Lord or the learned Attorney General will throw some light upon it. As this House is aware, in years gone by Irish Members have proved conclusively that agents of the police in Ireland in the Coercionist days offered money to unscrupulous individuals for the perpetration of outrage, and though I am not for a moment insinuating that this charge is true, yet, as the statement has gone the round of the Press, I trust the learned Attorney General will give us some little light upon it. Finally, I sincerely hope and trust that, for the benefit of the people in India, and for the credit of your own Government there, the noble Lord will take into consideration, and endeavour to act upon, the temperate and manly advice which has been given to-night by the hon. Member for Cardiff.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): I shall not deal at length, Sir, with the several points on which my opinion has been asked. With regard to the last point, raised by the hon. Member for South Mayo, as to a certain paragraph, I never heard of that paragraph until he read it, and have no information of any kind as to the statements contained in it, and I think my noble Friend is in the same position.
    MR. DAVITT: It was taken from the Westminster Gazette of February 3rd.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: It does not follow that it would therefore necessarily come to my knowledge, or that of the noble Lord. An application has been made to me by the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Caithness to say that the action which was taken against the Natu brothers was wholly illegal on the ground that it was not within the terms or scope of the orders given to the Bombay Government. I cannot take that view. The hon. Member has rightly gathered that the Government of Bombay considered that they were justified in dealing with a matter where security of the British Indian dominions from internal commotions was involved; and I do not suppose that anyone, especially those who have most knowledge, can possibly come to any other decision. Just

    1099
    consider what was the matter. There was a terrible plague and scourge prevailing in that part of our dominions. It affected women as well as men, and to cope with it necessitated a personal examination which, it was admitted, would be highly repugnant to Indian feeling, and would require a calm hand and a steady rule to carry it into effect. It was brought, rightly or wrongly, to the attention of Her Majesty's representatives on the spot that there was in existence an organisation for the purpose of preventing these precautions from being taken. And I cannot imagine anything more likely to promote internal commotions than that there should be anything like friction between the authorities and those poor persons who, for their own good, were going to be subjected to supervision or treatment. I speak with great deference, not knowing to what extent my opinion may be well founded, but certainly I cannot conceive any state of circumstances more likely to bring about internal commotions than anything like an attempt to prevent the Government from carrying out those precautions which they thought necessary in order to put down the scourge. I have very little to add as to the deportation of the Natus, but there is one circumstance which seems to me to be a very strong justification of the action of Her Majesty's representatives. And I must point out, in passing, that it is of the very essence of the jurisdiction exercised under these orders that it must be exercised in cases in which you could not, in many instances, bring the persons to trial. Of course, such jurisdiction ought only to be exercised under circumstances of paramount necessity, and never ought to take the place of trials where a condemnation might be offered in the ordinary course of justice. Therefore, it is no argument whatever—I say it with all deference to the hon. Members for South Mayo and Bethnal Green—to say that the Government have not dared to bring these persons to trial. It is only in cases where there may be no legal proof, but where the Executive Government are satisfied that it is their duty in this matter to protect the enormous interests entrusted to their care, that they take these steps. There is one circumstance which, as I have said, strongly corroborates the view that the action of the
    1100
    authorities was justified. It is stated that since the arrest of the Natus the opposition to the action of the Government has diminished in a remarkable degree, and there is now practically very little difficulty in carrying out the sanitary regulations which are absolutely essential to the staying of the plague. I admit that that may not be regarded as an argument, if the question is approached from the standpoint of some hon. Gentlemen.
    DR. CLARK: How does the hon. and learned Gentleman explain the fact that during the last few weeks there have been riots, and officers have been murdered?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I am sure the hon. Member for Caithness will understand that I am speaking not with any pretence to an intimate knowledge of the subject, but because I have been appealed to for specific answers to specific questions which have been put. I have not a full knowledge—it would be impertinent in me to lay claim to a full knowledge—of all occurrences in India, but I understand that riots have not taken place recently in the districts which are immediately under discussion. The responsibility of taking action under these laws must rest upon the Government which takes that action, and it is quite absurd, if he will forgive me for saying so, for the hon. Member to stand up in this House and tell hon. Gentlemen that they were sitting here as a Court of appeal, as it were, and that their verdict must be given on the case submitted. I do not think anyone who heard the noble Lord's statement can doubt that the authorities acted with a full sense of their responsibility and a full appreciation of the difficulties with which they had to cope, or that their action has done much to bring about the decline of the agitation. Sir, I wish to say that the ruling or judgment of Mr. Justice Strachey was based on sound legal principles, and I will content myself by reading one sentence. The court consisted of the Lord Chancellor, Lord Davey, Lord Hobhouse, and Sir Richard Crouch, and, under these circumstances, I am sure nobody will

    1101
    suggest again, as has been suggested, and most improperly suggested in some organs of the Press, that the judgment was biassed by political reasons. The sentence I shall read is this, and is by the Lord Chancellor—
    "Their lordships are of opinion, taking this view of the whole summing-up, which is of very great length, that there is nothing in that which, in their lordships' opinion, calls upon them to indicate any dissent from, or necessity to correct, what is therein contained, looking at the summing up as a whole, and looking at each part of what was said by the light of what else was said."
    Mr. Speaker, Sir, the House can judge by the last sentence as well as I do. I do not think I was wrong in saying that the ruling of Mr. Justice Strachey and the judgment of the courts of India was approved and confirmed by the Privy Council of India. As to the Press prosecutions, the only case brought forward has been the Tilak case. All I can say regarding that, is that I have read the summing up of Mr. Justice Strachey, and I do not believe there is anything at all new in it. It seems to have been a very reasonable and sensible exposition of how the law should be applied under the circumstances. I now come to the last of the three points referred to by the hon. Member for Cardiff. I must traverse entirely the view taken by the hon. Member. I cannot for a single moment think that if he had an opportunity of studying what the proposed alterations of the law are, that he could have suggested that the Amendments are with a view of muzzling the Press, or interfering with the freedom of the Press. If hon. Members will study the Amendments, they cannot possibly come to the conclusion that these Amendments will muzzle the Press or interfere with the free discussion to which the Press is entitled. They are only intended to enact that which has been law ever since the penal code was passed. Sir, it is very unfortunate that anyone who has been concerned in the discussion of this matter should remain under the impression that the Amendments, if carried, will have any one of these serious consequences, which some Members say they will have. The Amendments may or may not be desirable, but they certainly
    1102
    are not the intention, nor will they have the effect of curtailing or interfering with the proper freedom of the Press, or muzzling the Press, or bringing un due pressure to bear upon it. I have not seen the whole of the Amended Criminal Code myself, but only a part of it, and I am informed that it contains some 600 clauses. It is now under discussion, and the hon. Member who moved the Amendment spoke as though this proposed alteration in the law were connected with the law of sedition. That is entirely a mistake. The alteration has not the slightest specific relation to the law of sedition, but only a general application. The proposed Amendments are still under consideration, and I think it would be very wrong of this House, on the materials now before it, to endeavour to influence the judgment of those who have the responsibility of deciding, in the first place, what Amendments in the law are desirable. The Secretary of State has a great responsibility upon him in confirming or declining to confirm the Amendments, and his conduct can be called into question by this House. If the proposed Amendments in the law are not thought desirable, the present Secretary of State, or his successor, can disapprove of them. But the responsibility of considering what the Amendments in the law should be ought to rest, in the first instance, with the Legislative Council of India, subject to the authority of the Secretary of State. Sir, I deprecate most strongly, and I believe most Members will agree with me, the idea that a preliminary discussion should take place in this House at the present moment. Sir, this is not a time, nor has the House material for dealing with the question of what the Amendments of the law ought to be, but I may be allowed to say that I differ from the hon. Member for Cardiff, for the reasons I have stated, in the opinion he has expressed of the effect of the Amendments if they are carried. I do not want, and I do not intend, to depart from my own rules, but I must not be thought to agree with the opinion of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green when he said that his view of the law at the present time was that there must be some incitement to disturbance of the peace. I am sure the hon. Member will forgive me for interpreting the law, not in my own words, but in the language of that

    1103
    great man, Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, who knew as much about Indian law as about English law—and that is saying a great deal—and who described sedition as
    "Inciting any person to commit any crime in disturbance of the peace, or to raise discontent or disaffection among Her Majesty's subjects, or to promote illwill and hostility between different classes of Her Majesty's subjects."
    Mr. Speaker, Sir, remembering the different races and creeds that exist in India, I am sure no one who has ever studied the question would think there was less necessity for such a law in India than in England, yet that has been the law of England, and is the law of England to-day, unqualified by anything any judge has said, however re cent his charge may be. Sir, it seems to me that the discussion thus brought forward in this House has elicited several interesting points, and has, I think, shown that the charges made across the floor of the House last year were made without a full knowledge of the facts, and upon materials which, if hon. Members had had an opportunity of investigating them, would not have been preferred. It would not facilitate the Government of India if such charges were true. I would not refer to the notable attack made in a Committee-room of the House, which had to be withdrawn unconditionally, but I do say this——
    *SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I did not intend to take
    a part in this Debate, but if the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that I made a charge of this sort, I must state that it is quite incorrect. I said that these charges—at least, I did not say it myself, but Professor Gokhle said—that these charges had been made in Poona, and we said that the charges should be investigated. If untrue, those people who made them should be punished; if true, proper restitution should be made. I have not made any charge whatever, and if anyone says that, they say what is untrue.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I did not refer to any charges made by the hon. Member, and I know of none. I was referring to charges suggested in questions put by other hon. Members. I merely referred to them because they have been referred to in the course of the Debate. I have no intention of going into any controversial matter, but I desire to say that I am sure all independent Members of this House will come to the conclusion that neither the Indian Government nor Her Majesty's Government, in the course they have taken, have infringed any of those rules of conduct by which they ought to be animated.
    MR. SPEAKERput the Amendment.
    Question put, "That those words be there added."
    The House divided. Ayes 109; Noes 182.
    Main Question again proposed.

    DISFRANCHISEMENT OF POST OFFICE SERVANTS.
    MR. SAMUEL WOODS: Mr. Speaker, I rise with a certain amount of diffidence to move the Amendment which is set down in my name. The terms of my Amendment are as follows:—
    "And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that your servants in the Post Office are not permitted to exercise the franchise, generally allowed to other Departments in the State; nor to serve on electoral committees; nor to take part in political agitation; and are otherwise deprived of the privileges of citizenship in defiance of the letter and spirit of the law; that the officials of the Post Office refuse to recognise the Postmen's Trade Union; their officials are illegally and unjustly dismissed for circularising Parliamentary Candidates; and we humbly beg Your Majesty to instruct the Postmaster General to remedy these grievances."
    Sir, in order to prevent wrong impression or misunderstanding of the terms of my Amendment, I should like to remark, in regard to the first sentence—where it says that the Post Office servants are not permitted to exercise the franchise—that I do not mean by that to imply that the postmen are not allowed to vote in Parliamentary elections; but what I do mean to imply is that they are prevented from exercising their full citizens' rights—they are not allowed to interview Parliamentary candidates—and in their private time from using their political opinions. Now, Sir, this Amendment raises very important issues. I am afraid that the subject of my Amendment will not be very popular in certain parts of the House, but I feel sure that
    1108
    hon. Members will do me the credit of believing that I have been actuated by no political or Party bias in moving the Amendment which is set down in my name. This question, Sir, is no new question in the House of Commons, nor in the country, because I suppose I should be perfectly right if I said that for the last 10 years there had been continuous and perpetual agitations amongst the postal employees with regard to the remedying of grievances which they have complained of from, time to time. Now, Sir, the two points that I wish to direct the attention of hon. Members to are: first, that the postal servants are not allowed the exercise of their political rights, and in the second place they are not allowed what is ordinarily understood as the right of combination, as exercised by the rest of the working classes in the country. This question has been brought before the House on several occasions. I suppose there have been many questions put to Ministers, and the question has been raised, not only in that way, but by means of petitions to the Postmaster General, and I believe, on one occasion, an Amendment to the Address was put down in 1894, when a Division of the House was taken, and it was defeated. Now, Sir, just to explain the treatment to which the postal servants are subjected I will read two extracts, which, I think, will perfectly satisfy hon. Members that the treatment measured out to those men to whom the statements refer, was harsh and rigid in the most extreme sense. The first statement refers to the punishment which was meted out by the right hon. Baronet the Member for North East Manchester, who was Postmaster General at the time of its infliction.

    1109
    He, no doubt, believed that he was exercising his duty in the important position which he occupied at the time. Whatever his opinion might be, it was felt as a great hardship in the postal service, and I may say that it has done more to continue the agitation among the postmen than anything else in connection with the service. It appears that on the 15th June, 1892, a mass meeting of postal servants was held in the Foresters' Hall, Clerkenwell. It was called by the Fawcett Association, and it was held with the sanction of the authorities, subject to the enforced presence of a shorthand writer. That does not savour of the freedom of England. It reminds one very much of France or Germany, and it is a thing altogether out of date to have at public meetings an official shorthand writer on the platform to take an official note. At that meeting a resolution was passed, and that resolution had reference, I ought to say, to the circular which had been sent out to the candidates for Parliamentary honours; because this was just preceding the General Election.
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: There was no official shorthand writer present. I understand that is so.
    MR. WOODS: The circular was drawn up at that meeting and the secretary and the chairman of the meeting were asked to sign it on behalf of the meeting. To come to the nature of the circular, I think hon. Members ought to understand its terms, which will enable them much better to understand all the facts about the passing of the resolution. The circular contained this query—
    "Will you, in the event of being elected a Member of Parliament, support a Motion for the appointment of a Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry into the Post Office Service, such as was advocated by Earl Compton, and largely supported during the recent Session of the House of Commons?"
    I do not see anything irregular in a Motion of that kind. I think it a very reasonable and fair and modest resolution. It was only asking an inquiry into the alleged grievances. I ought to say that this resolution was sent out to the candidates who stood for Parliamentary honours in the election of 1892, and I am informed that there were favourable replies sent to the officials of this organisation by no fewer than 200 candidates
    1110
    for the Parliament of 1892–95. Among the names who gave approval of the circular of the postmen were those of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Mr. Arnold Morley), who became Postmaster General immediately after the election, Lord Russell, Mr. Herbert Gladstone, Mr. R. K. Causton, Mr. J. Stuart, Mr. S. D. Waddy, and the hon. Member for Morpeth. I think a resolution of that kind must have commended itself to the judgment of the gentlemen who gave their adhesion to the proposal. Now, what happened? Immediately after the election—I think about four weeks afterwards—the chairman and the secretary who had signed that resolution on behalf of the public meeting received notice of their dismissal, and I think that that may fairly be considered to be harsh treatment and a very rigid form of discipline. It is of that treatment that the Post Office servants at the present time complain. I will read what appears to me to be a harsher resolution than that. On December 11th, 1892, executive officers of the Association waited upon the Postmaster General for the purpose of bringing certain grievances before him regarding duties and pay. The result of that interview was that the Postmaster General called for documentary evidence to prove the statements of the deputation. On January 3rd the Postmaster General, without waiting for the evidence to be submitted to him, gave his decision on the points laid before him at the interview, thus closing the case. The men considered this, very unsatisfactory, and they called a meeting of the Association on the 8th January. At that meeting a resolution was carried and the chairman was instructed by express resolution of the meeting to forward that resolution on to the Postmaster General by telegram, which was done the next day. On January 14th, six days later, the Chairman was sent for by the Receiver and Accountant General, who read a Minute from the Postmaster General describing the act of sending the resolution as irregular and improper, and requesting his immediate explanation. He was not allowed to leave the room, but to sit down there and then to write it. The explanation was as follows:—
    "Sir,—I am unaware that in forwarding the resolution as instructed by the meeting. I was

    1111
    doing anything contrary to the rules. It having now been distinctly pointed out to me that it is irregular and improper—in fact, that it is insubordination—to do so, I regret my action. I beg, however, to call attention to the entire absence of rules on this matter for the guidance of the staff."
    That was signed by the man. This explanation was forwarded to the Postmaster General, who considered the reply as unsatisfactory, and felt it his duty to take serious notice of the man's action. He requested that the man should be reduced to the bottom of the second class, which meant a great loss on his wages. I ask any hon. Member if he thinks that is fair treatment? Here is a man, who is called before the Postmaster General and asked to give an account of his conduct; then the man writes in such a reasonable spirit, and the result is that he is reduced in seniority and there is a reduction of 5s. a week in his wages. I ask whether that cannot be termed unfair treatment? But that is not the whole of the case. I ought to say that a Committee was asked for by the postal servants from 1892 to 1895; it was granted, and the Tweedmouth Commission was organised for the purpose of listening to the grievances of the postal servants. It is not my duty to say anything in favour of, or against, the proceedings of that Committee, but evidence was given by men before that Committee which bears upon the subject, and I think the Members of the House ought to be aware of what kind of evidence was given before that Committee. There was a gentleman who gave evidence on the 25th February, 1896, and this is a case, in my judgment, of the grossest intimidation. A statement was made—and I am reading from the evidence given before Lord Tweedmouth—by a gentleman named Mr. Henry Boaler, who was examined—
    "The Chairman asked: I suppose you mean that the record mounts up against them? And the answer was, Yes. The first case to which I would ask your consideration is that of J. Chapman and W. Howell, of the Western District Office, who in the year 1891 were punished with the loss of class, which to a postman is monetary loss."
    The evidence goes on—
    "The Chairman: You mean that they were degraded by being put back in their class? Answer: Yes, my Lord. In this instance the loss is estimated at about £40 at present, and
    1112
    they will continue to lose at the same average until they find their maximum. Their offence is one which we have the highest possible authority for saying is no offence, and which there is no rule against, viz., combining for remedy of alleged grievances. These men were appointed as auxiliaries in 1886, and appointed second-class postmen in 1888. In 1890 they joined the Postmen's Union, and were elected by members of the branch as local secretary and collector. During October, 1891, nearly two years later, and at the time of the abolition of the classes, 52 appointments to the first class were made, which should in the ordinary course of events have included these men by virtue of their service and fitness, each having over three years', and whose conduct had never been questioned. But this was not so. They were excluded, and the reason given by the Postmaster was that they were prominent members of the local branch. Therefore, gentlemen, these men were passed over by a number of their juniors, which not only meant an immediate loss—3s. per week—but the loss of seniority, which, also acts to their detriment in the choice of walks, holidays, etc. The Chairman: Has any particular case of these men been raised before? Answer: Yes, my Lord; I believe it has been reported to the Comptroller several times. They can get no remedy. Mr. Walpole: Did not these men attend a meeting outside of the Post Office for the redress of grievances, contrary to the existing regulations of the Department? Answer: I have a question here from one of the best authorities we can get—the late Mr. Raikes—who, when Postmaster General, said, 'There is no rule forbidding Post Office employees to combine for the purpose of remedying alleged grievances.' Question: But was not such a rule in force at the time these men combined? Answer: We are given to understand that there never was such a rule."
    I take that to be a gross form of intimidation, and an attack made on the leaders of the local Trade Union. They are reduced in wages, they are humiliated in every possible form for trying to bring their grievances before the proper authorities. If they did not carry out the exact rule, if they did not apply in the right method, then they were to be humiliated. ["Hear, hear!"] An hon. Gentleman said "Hear, hear." How can the men do anything else, seeing there is no rule for guidance? They do not know whom to apply to; whether to the Postmaster General or to any of the subordinate officials of the Department. I have read you a case showing how a man apologised for not having brought forward his grievance in a satisfactory way according to the supposed or alleged

    1113
    rules of the Post Office Department. This case, I think, proves that so far as the right of combination is concerned, these men are not able at the present time to exercise such rights as are exercised in other branches of industry throughout the rest of the country. Now, Sir, I have to raise another question—the question of the discharge of two men. I am not aware that there was any bad conduct on the part of those men; I am not aware that there was any allegation of neglect of duty, or any charge of any kind. Yet, for putting questions to candidates in 1892, they got a severe punishment at the hands of the right hon. Baronet. Questions were put in the House at the time those alleged offences were committed. I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman at the time, and this was his answer: He said that these two men, Messrs. Clery and Cheeseman, who were dismissed, were not only offenders, but they were the ringleaders. I should like to ask him how he made out that they were the ringleaders. Three days afterwards he received a petition, signed by no less than 2,000 of the employees in the Postal Service, pointing out that it was not these two gentlemen, but the whole meeting, that ought to have been punished. He said—
    "Though they were made chiefly responsible I do not see any case to ask the Law Officers of the Crown as to the legality of my action in the matter. I am not aware of my statement and warning having caused grave dissatisfaction and alarm, nor am I aware of a precedent either for the course I have taken, or for the conduct which is alleged, and I am not prepared to reinstate the dismissed men or withdraw the warning."
    He does not allege that he is acting according to the law of the country. He is acting as the head of a great department, and in that position he has a perfect right to see that proper discipline is maintained. I am sure that there is not a man employed in the Postal Service to-day who would want any other treatment but that which was fair and just between the head of a department and the men in their employ. But we are told by a high legal authority, by a gentleman who has made this question a study, that there is no law in force in this country which would justify an action of this kind, or which would in
    1114
    any sense limit the action of the Civil servants of the Crown. It looks to me strange and severe, and I hope we shall, in the course of the Debate, have a satisfactory answer to the question I am now raising. With regard to the legal aspect of the question, I need only quote the opinion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Islington. The hon. Baronet, speaking at a meeting held in the Memorial Hall on the 8th June, 1893, made this statement—
    "So far as the law was concerned, that demand had been fully conceded. The first repealing Act granted that to all Civil servants except Revenue Officers. That exception was, however, swept away, and Civil servants were held to be entitled to all the privileges of citizenship, though the operation took some time, the struggle lasting from the reign of George III. to an advanced point in the reign of Queen Victoria. Parliament, however, ultimately said, 'Thou shale not have those rights'; and they were deprived of the rights which were essential to the welfare and safety of the State."
    Later, in the same speech, he contended—
    "That no regulations of a Department had authority to infringe the provisions of an Act of Parliament, and he believed that regulations prohibiting meetings, for instance, were ultra vires, and a violation of the statute law of the realm."
    I have quoted the words of the hon. Baronet, and I believe, so far as my inquiries have gone, that that is a legal statement of the position of the law in regard to the political action of the Civil servants of the Crown. Of course, I could quote other cases affecting the main point in the Amendment. The first point to put is that the postal servants have not a proper and legitimate right of combination. I think I have demonstrated that by the references I have made. Further proof is furnished by the constant agitation that is going on amongst the postmen of the country, and if I can only get a satisfactory assurance that that rigid discipline and intimidation which I have quoted, will be relaxed, it will serve, so far as that point is concerned. The second point refers to their right to approach candidates in regard to their grievances. I fail to see why there should be a distinction between the ordinary workman, who, after he has finished his employment, is at perfect liberty to use his civil rights, and the

    1115
    man employed by the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman who will answer this Debate will say that in a great department of State proper discipline must be kept up. I think I shall be speaking the sentiments of the postal servants when I say that, so far as proper discipline is concerned, there will not be a dissentient voice in the whole service. This regards the exercise of their political rights, to which, they contend, they are entitled. I say that no harm will come, either to the servants of the Crown or to the head of the Department, if this be conceded—that postmen, like other working men who have a legitimate grievance, should be allowed to use the only weapon at their command, and to approach candidates, and ask them whether they will try to bring about a remedy for the grievances of which they complain. Another point I raise is this, that there is no Act of Parliament prohibiting the free exercise of the fullest privileges of citizenship. It is the duty of the House to abrogate the Departmental Order which prevents the exercise of such rights. Surely, if men are to be dealt with for exercising the ordinary rights of citizens, this House should provide a remedy. I will not trespass longer on the time of the House further than just to summarise the whole of the points on which postmen agree. The first point is that there ought to be a full right of public meeting, with the right to pass resolutions dealing with their wages and conditions of service, without the interference of the officials of the Post Office. The second point is the reinstatement of the discharged members of the Postal Union to their former positions, both with regard to the wages and service. There is no real and legitimate reason why this punishment should be meted out to them. In the third place, a postman should have the right to interview a candidate or a Member of Parliament on questions affecting their grievances. Lastly, we desire that postal servants having legitimate grievances may, if they so desire, be accompanied by officials of their trade union in their visits to the Postmaster General or other permanent officials. I put these points with the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, and I put it to the House of Commons, to use their power to see that
    1116
    the valuable servants of the State should have justice and fair play meted out to them. That, I think, will meet all that is intended by the postal servants of the country.
    *MR. LOUGH, in seconding the Amendment, said: It may be said that the postal servants are permitted to exercise the franchise, but they are not permitted to exercise the full franchise. I think no one who has listened to the very moderate statement made by the hon. Member can deny that a stigma is laid upon these public servants. I would make upon this two brief remarks. It would be impossible to have selected amongst the servants of the public any class who less deserve that a stigma should be placed upon them than those who work in the Post Office. In these matters it is very hard and unfair that distinctions should be drawn. We who live in London especially must acknowledge that these men, who deliver our letters 12 times a day, and who carry away letters again with such regularity and punctuality, are deserving of the sympathy of the public and of this House. I think this stigma is also deeply resented by the public. There was a good deal of sympathy shown not only by the Secretary to the Treasury, who now represents the Post Office, but by the right hon. Gentleman who was at the head of the Post Office during the three years preceding the period during which the present Government has been in office. Although all this sympathy has been displayed, yet the evil has not been dealt with, and that is why we have the Amendment to the Address. The prohibition against which we protested has not been withdrawn, and postmen are not allowed to enjoy the full electoral rights of other citizens. The stigma that attaches to the postman also extends to the Members of Parliament. If a man is selected as a candidate to represent a constituency in Parliament, the candidate when he comes into Parliament is bound to look after the interests of his constituents. And when the candidate is fenced round by this atmosphere of protection, the stigma lies almost as much upon him as it does upon those who placed him in that

    1117
    petitions to the Postmaster General, and allowing a postman, or any other person, to question the candidate or to put his case to the man whom he is sending into Parliament? The candidate will know how to answer, and, generally speaking, a discreet answer will be given, and then the grievance will be discussed, which is far better than attempts being made to hush it up as has been done in this case. The point I want to emphasise is, that no progress at all will be made unless the case of 1892 is dealt with. I was one of the candidates standing in 1892. In June I got this circular and I replied to it, and I believe there were over 100 others who subsequently became Members of this House who replied to it also. I had not the experience then which I have now, but it seemed to me—as it still seems—to be an innocent document, and I feel that if it was sent to me to-night I should send the same reply that I did then, and I would not think there was the least harm in it. I think the 100 Members who replied to that circular would feel that they are bound to speak for their friends, the postmen, to whom they sent the letter that day. I would also point out that the objects of the circular have been secured. It suggested that a committee should be appointed, and that was done. It asked that a change should be effected in the conditions of the postmen, and a complete and revolutionary change has taken place. The objects of the circular have been accepted by the Government—two Governments, in fact—and yet the very Government which accepted the principles of the circular continued to persecute the men who brought the matter to light. I think it is a great pity that these two or three victims should be allowed to make so good a case as they do make out, whilst nothing is done to listen to their complaints. These two men are put into a much stronger position than they would be if justice was meted out to them. They have become the heads of a great political movement and their voices are heard throughout the country, and I think, so long as these men are singled out for punishment in the way they have been, we shall not
    1118
    hear the last of this case. The Departmental Committee which was held before Lord Tweedmouth did not bring the matter to an end, and the cause of that was that they were not allowed to deal with the case of these two men. I believe that the failure of that Committee to do what it had to do will cause yet another Committee to be appointed to take up the work. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will deny that the Tweedmouth Committee was a failure. His action last Session precludes the possibility of his doing so. He appointed some extraordinary body, which he never described in the House, to meet upstairs—a sort of open court.
    *MR. HANBURY: It was an inquiry before the Duke of Norfolk and myself. It was done in our presence.
    *MR. LOUGH: Nothing more important could take place, yet they met hurriedly. There was no notice given——
    *MR. HANBURY: Oh, no! that is not so.
    *MR. LOUGH: I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that it was one of the most irregular proceedings that ever took place in this House. But my point is, that the Postmaster General and my right hon. Friend, if I may say so, meeting the postmen so shortly after, showed that the Committee had not done its work. Now, I press that point, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will extend a sympathetic ear to this question, and my suggestion is that some effort should be made to remove this grievance of which we have heard so much in this House. The only other point I would urge is, that the refusal to hear the leaders of the trade union leads to unsatisfactory, ineffective, and inconclusive results. It is almost impossible for a man to answer the arguments brought by the Department against him, but, fortunately for these men, and men in other branches of the service, they have unions with highly-skilled officials at the head, and they can state and illustrate a case, and bring it home in a manner which the men cannot. I will give

    1119
    a few illustrations of what I mean: I believe it was laid down by the Tweedmouth Committee that all postmen in the service over the age of 19 should get £52 a year salary, but the Committee forgot when they made this rule to provide for the case of the older men in the service, who were then over 20 years of age, and the result is that men who have only been a few months employed are getting more than others who have been years in the service, which is a serious anomaly. Now, that is one example. It is a small point which was overlooked because the men were not allowed to be represented by the leaders of their trade union.
    *MR. HANBURY: But all the representatives of the postmen were admitted.
    *MR. LOUGH: Yes, but not officials of the trade union.
    *MR. HANBURY: Not the men who were not postmen.
    *MR. LOUGH: Then an extension of seven days was given for holidays to men who had been more than five years in the service, but those who had not been five years in the service had five days taken off their holidays. I put these allegations with great reluctance, as it is impossible for one to have the information which is at the disposal of the Department, and there may be another side to the story. Such points could only be dealt with by the skilled representatives of the men, who knew the facts of the case, and who would have argued the case for them. For these reasons I think it may be necessary to go into the whole case again. I will not detain the House further. The ground has already been thoroughly covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, but I will say, in conclusion, that unless the case of 1892 is dealt with we shall not get rid of the loss of time in this House by these constant discussions which have taken place for the last six years. We shall not get rid of that inconvenience until
    1120
    this case is dealt with, because I believe that it is the corner-stone upon which the whole complaint rests.
    DR. TANNER: Mr. Speaker, I beg to call your attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members present.
    On the House being counted after the usual interval, Mr. Speaker called upon—
    *SIR A. K. ROLLIT: Mr. Speaker, in supporting the Amendment, I must acknowledge very fully the courtesy of the Postmaster General and my learned Friend the Secretary to the Treasury in their endeavour, as far as possible, to meet the complaints and Grievances which have been brought before them, and if I have to criticise the existing system I wish it to be distinctly understood that it is the system, and not either the Postmaster General or, in fact, any Postmaster General, upon whom reflection is cast. I think my learned Friend will do me the justice to admit that in the many negotiations I have had with the Postmaster General, especially towards the close of last year, I did not support the undue assertion, or the assertion to any extreme point of Trades Unionism. The Unions, however, took great interest in this matter, and may I state that my experience convinces me that in the Post Office, as elsewhere, those Unions are frequently a restraining force, and also, speaking from experience on the London Conciliation Board, the difficulty is not so much with those who have responsible leaders, but rather with organised and especially disorganised labour. Who can presume to bind them? I venture to say that when an agreement is made, it is, as a rule, fulfilled, and one of the conditions is that the trade shall be represented by those who know their wants and demands, and who have been frankly willing to accept the decision of an arbitrator or umpire. I know that in many quarters there is a prejudice against Trade Unionism, and especially against its leaders, who are too often called agitators, I think very frequently

    1121
    wrongly; but, I think, no one who knows the history of those Unions can say that it is not the fact that upon the whole they have benefited their order rather than otherwise, and that they have raised both the wages and conditions of labour, and though, like all organisations and individuals, they have at times made mistakes, still, as a rule, those Unions have contributed to the welfare of the workman, and placed him in a better and more powerful position by means of collective bargaining. I believe that the true solution of labour troubles is that both sides of the disputants shall have an opportunity to organise, and that both sides shall be ready to submit their disagreements to a tribunal for settlement. With regard to the Post Office Unions, I think, so far as my knowledge extends, that they have contributed, on the whole, to that peaceable settlement which prevented a strike, and the consequent injury and inconvenience to the public, in the Telegraph Service, and that, therefore, when their views are brought before this House they are, at any rate, entitled to a fair hearing. Now, Mr. Speaker, whatever may be our view as to the restraint on Party politics in the Civil Service, or with regard to the right of combination in the Civil Service, I do not think anyone will venture to say, after what they have heard to-night, that the existing conditions of things is at all satisfactory. In the first place, in the Post and Postal Telegraph Service there is great and widely extended discontent and dissatisfaction. My right hon. Friend says "No," and I will admit that he has done a great deal to redress it, but there is discontent and dissatisfaction still, and I believe it to be widely expressed, and that it has arisen, I believe, in a great measure from the ill-defined, vague, and frequently arbitrary, regulations which have been imposed upon the Service by successive Postmasters General, almost at their will and pleasure, and whatever else Ave may do to-night, I hope we shall bring home to the nation—I will not say harsh, because I know my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester is incapable of hard dealings—but what I think has been the hard fate of the two leaders of a great Union, which has produced much of the discontent, which I have spoken, and I
    1122
    will venture to suggest to him that, at any rate, whatever regulations are made for the government of a great service, that they should be clearly defined, that they should be made perfectly accessible, and that the rules should not be varied and variable as they have been, but that they should apply to the whole of the Civil Service, which should be placed in this respect upon one uniform footing from the highest to the lowest position in it. Now, I think, if that had been done, much more would have been achieved in remedying the grievances of the telegraphists. Their modest maximum of £190, practically only £160, after 27 years' service, their moderate claim of 28s. a week after five years' service, and their most reasonable claim to holidays, at any rate, sometimes in the summer, would have had an opportunity of being conceded; and yet those grievances exist still—a fact which in itself, I think, is, notwithstanding what has been done, some reflection upon the system which at present exists. I will discuss for a moment the question of the civil rights of these services. Who gave them? Parliament. Parliament could have given them, if it thought proper, conditionally; and its decision would, of course, have been binding, even now, if the existing state of affairs is wrong—if the franchise has been too hastily granted, or has been granted under such conditions as ought not to have been annexed—Parliament can intervene again, and the Civil Services can be heard in this House through their representatives. But this is the cardinal point of the situation: Parliament gave the franchise and the usual civil rights without any limitation whatever, without any of the limitations which were imposed in certain other cases. By the Conspiracy Act, for instance, it was said there were certain classes of workmen who, for public reasons, should not have the liberty to combine which was given to other classes—I mean the workmen in water and gas works, which directly serve the public—and Parliament could have enforced similar limitations in this case. And why did Parliament not do so? Because, practically, you cannot draw a line. You give the franchise, with all its civil rights, or you give it with conditions, which Parliament did

    1123
    not think possible; and yet we have a state of affairs in which, as I suggest, successive Postmasters General have assumed the functions of Parliament unconstitutionally and, I think, wrongfully, and have, by various circulars and regulations, demonstrated the impossibility of justly and fairly drawing that line, with the result, in certain cases, of dismissals and of destruction of livelihood, which ought only to be the result, if ever, of Parliamentary action. I would ask the House to see what the Postmasters General have attempted, and with what result. For instance, in 1885 I drew the attention of the House to the varying utterances of different Postmasters General on these subjects. The Postmaster General of that period said that, though no longer under any electoral disabilities. Postal servants must not join election committees, or speak or write on political subjects in public; and a circular to that effect was issued and signed "by command of the Postmaster General." Now, I think those words were in themselves a contradiction in terms. There is to be no restriction of political rights, it is stated, and yet, in the same sentence, the men are told that they are not to go to any political meeting or to speak or write on political subjects. I venture to say that the gift of the franchise, with, at the same time, limitation of discussion or debate, is a danger to the State. A vote is a trust and responsibility, to be exercised for the benefit of the nation, and how is its possessor to exercise it rightly if he has not the liberty of listening to what other people think, and say, and of taking part in debate or discussion upon public affairs? I also venture to say that that limitation, which Parliament did not pass, ought never to have been made by the political head of a Department. Such a course, indeed, seems to me to be very capable of abuse in many directions. I will point out next that Mr. Arnold Morley, when Postmaster General, made a great departure from the order I have just read. He said—
    "Officers of the Post Office are no longer under electoral disabilities, but it is expected of them that they will exercise a certain reserve, and not put themselves forward on one side or the other."
    1124
    That was in 1892. I quite agree that, as a matter of voluntary action and in their own discretion, the "exercise of a certain reserve" is a proper course to pursue; but it is a very different thing to exact that reserve in derogation of the rights which have been conferred by Parliament upon the voter; and in that case, I repeat, I think the derogation of these rights a distinct danger to the State. What if other employers were to say they demanded of their workmen that they should not take part in political meetings on one side or the other? I think such an order would be characterised as tyrannical and socially most dangerous; and I would ask, what is the distinction between the Post Office as an employer of labour and other large employers of labour? But I want to refer to another point in this connection. In February, 1895, Mr. Arnold Morley again said—"Post Office servants are not precluded from taking part in politics," and the context shows he meant that they could do anything in that direction when off duty, because he said, "They must not, however, allow them to interfere with their duties." I venture to say that that was almost in the nature of a licence, and was directly calculated to lead men into error on this subject. The best way of determining the intentions of Parliament is to go to Acts of Parliament as they were passed, and I should like the House to consider what is the foundation of the disabilities that have been imposed on Postal servants, and what was the intention of Parliament when the disabilities were revoked. To get at this you have to go to the early part of the reign of George III., when members of the Civil Service were disabled from exercising the franchise, not on account of any labour question, but because the pay given them was thought likely to unduly influence them. That was the ground of the disablement, and when it was removed in 1868 the recital of the Act declared that it was not expedient, in the interests of the State, that it should be retained. Now, we find Party Postmasters General issuing their circulars ordering that postal officials shall not take part in politics; but as a matter of fact the original

    1125
    disabilities attached to the Postmasters General themselves, whose votes were only given back to them in 1868. Thus we have a state of affairs in which the political and paid head of a Department assumes the right of taking away a portion of the electoral privileges of members of the lower branches of the service, while he himself is taking an active part in politics, and was himself only placed on the same ground as his fellows by the enfranchising Act to which I have referred. Thus we have a politician at the head of the Department—in itself, I think, a very wrong thing, for the head, in my mind, should not be a political but a commercial head—restricting, without the authority of Parliament, the exercise of that franchise when he himself is fully enfranchised, and is taking an active part in politics, and even coming into this House. Therefore, it does seem to me reprehensible that successive Postmasters General should have taken the course they have. Now, I have to say a word about combination in the service. With regard to the distinction which my right hon. Friend will Seek to draw between labour in Departments of State and labour in other fields, I venture to say he will point out that there are privileges attaching to work in the Departments of State—privileges of pay and of pension—which do not attach to other employments. But that is not a true ground of distinction. There are many other employers of labour who give exactly the same things; and in the case of the Post Office the Telegraphists, at least, so far from regarding the distinction as a privilege, repudiate the suggestion. If they are in a better position than the employees of private firms it is only in a very slightly better position; and when I recall the facts that their maximum is, in the large majority of cases, only £160 after 27 or 28 years' service, that they cannot get what they would have, 28s. a week after five years, which their own official chiefs say they deserve, and that they are under an obligation, which does not attach to those in the service of other employers of labour, to do overtime compulsorily, it will be seen that theirs is not a particularly privileged employment; and they can, in fact, not be induced to regard it, under present terms
    1126
    and conditions, in that light. Therefore, I say that, if this is the distinction which an attempt will be made to draw, it is an unsound one, and does not differentiate these men from those employed in other departments of labour. With regard to the question of combination, I should like the House to see how varying again are the official statements as to what is the right of Post Office servants. I have here a statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth, who, speaking as the head of the Government, said—
    "These servants have perfect freedom to combine, and to have all the advantages and privileges of trades unions."
    He vindicates trades unionism and the leadership of trades unions, and says there is no restriction on the right of combination.
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: Hear, hear!
    *SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: My right hon. Friend says "Hear, hear," but is it not a restriction of the rights of combination that they shall not be allowed to have the advantage of making their statements through their appointed and more expert leaders? Many of them, as has been said, are not in a position to make clear representations of their own cases. Again, I find it said by another official Lead that all the privileges of trades unionism are accorded to the trades union of the Post Office officials. That is inaccurate. I find that, though other trades unions have their recognised spokesmen, the postmen are denied that privilege. True, Mr. Arnold Morley had said he had received the trades unionist leaders in his office, and he had not inquired whether they were present or not, but to say they might come into the room, but not be allowed to speak, is absurd.
    *MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General laid down as to that that he would not allow an outsider—one who was not a postal servant—to accompany a deputation of postal servants.
    *SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: But there have been cases in which officers of the unions have been in the post office, and yet have not been allowed to be the spokesmen of their deputation. That right has been denied. In one case—that of the officers of the Fawcett Association—it has been a great hardship to the officers of the union, who have been dismissed the Service for simply doing what they believed legally to be their duty to those whom they represented. They are constituents of mine, and I know them well, and I am bound to say, if they had been dealt with more leniently and more sympathetically, it would have been very much better both for themselves and for the State and the Service. Now, what were the circumstances of that case? The Postmaster General said in the House of Commons, and also by circular, that candidates were not to be asked by Post Office officials to give any pledge to assist them as to their duties or their pay. No attempt was made to extract any such pledge. All that was asked was that if Members were returned to this House, and they were satisfied that there were substantial grievances, they would assist in their redress, through a Committee of Inquiry. I fail to see on what possible principle that redress could be refused. Many Members, myself among the number, put the matter before the House. It showed an infinity of real grievances, some of which were, in fact, redressed; and it was afterwards said the rule under which the Trade Unionists for being loyal to their union as their union was to them was no longer operative; and yet these men have lost their means of livelihood, and the benefit of pensions accruing to them, and now it is said on this point that discipline must be maintained. But when we view the matter historically, we must see whether the Order itself which was promulgated was an Order which was right and just, and I venture to say that an Order embodying what it does, and condemning a desire for an inquiry affecting the grievances of a large number of officials in the service, is not an Order that can be maintained, and I further say that Parliament, if it could properly and practically be done, would have itself limited the franchise to the votes of the
    1128
    employees. If that has not been done, then that Order by the Postmaster General is ultra vires, and the dismissal of these men was not just, and had brought very serious consequences on the individuals, and I hope that the conclusion at which this House will arrive will be that the Orders, both as to combination and as to the exercise of political rights, are wrong; and that these additions go beyond the law when we find, as we do constantly, that, even if they are fair in their terms, they are harsh in their operation. I hope, at any rate, the result of this Debate will be to show that combination, with all its results, has not been dangerous to the service, but, on the contrary, has been of immense and varied use, as I have known it to be, in avoiding great public inconvenience. The right that these officials claim ought, I think, to be conceded, the dismissed servants ought to be reinstated, and no restriction ought to be placed, in the fullest and widest sense of the term, upon the privileges of British citizenship.
    *SIR J. FERGUSSON: I trust the House will not think I am improperly trespassing upon its attention in speaking upon this Amendment. It may seem almost absurd that after five or six years one should have to defend an official Act, but I should very much regret it if I allowed it to be thought that I so used any authority I then possessed to press unduly upon or do any injustice to individuals. Of course the justification of the action of the postal authorities, I know, is in the most competent hands. But having regard to the attitude of this question, and it being recognised now as a rather notable case in 1892, and as the chief text of the hon. Member for Walthamstow to-night was apparently directed against myself, it may not be inopportune for me to say a few words. I take the two things before us, and see how far the decision taken was to call the attention of Parliament to the action of certain officials. The hon. Member for Walthamstow, whom I thought it proper to interrupt for a moment, said that in 1892 serious offence was given by the dismissal of certain officials, and that an official reporter was sent to the meeting, and I

    1129
    was able to point out to the hon. Member that it was not the case. When I called the attention of the House, on that paragraph, to the objectionable circular. I said that I had never used the right to send an official reporter, but relied on the newspaper reports, though I may say the Post Office servants were asked if they acknowledged the correctness of it. What took place was this: that an attempt was made on the eve of a general election to bring pressure to bear on Members of Parliament and candidates in order to procure from them a pledge that they would vote for a Committee of Inquiry. That, I need hardly say, was trying to exercise severe pressure, and I thought it my duty to bring this circular before the attention of the House, on that Debate on the Pose Office Estimates, and I pointed out it was quite contrary to the regulations of the Department. On that occasion, I may point out, I had the authority of Mr. Gladstone and the present Leader of the Opposition to say that they entirely agreed with the action I was taking. Well meetings continued to take place, and the two men who have been referred to, who were distinctly the ringleaders, said they were sorry the Postmaster General disapproved of their action, but they intended to go on with it. It naturally followed that as they continued to disobey the Orders of the Department they were dismissed. Now, the main point is this: was the action of the Postmaster General, whoever he was, contrary to the conditions and Rules of Parliament, "What right had the Postmaster General to take it?" I was a Member of this House when the Bill of the hon. Member for Gloucester was passed for removing the disabilities from civil servants to vote. It was thought by some, especially by the Leader of the House, Mr. Disraeli, to be a somewhat dangerous change, because it was thought that a person in the permanent Civil Service should not be allowed to take a side in politics, and that was the view shared by Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Gladstone said that the suggestion he would make would be that Parliament should give the vote, but that it was a matter for grave consideration. The departments should restrict other political action, and that it should be given subject to limitations. Those, I
    1130
    think, were pretty clearly the terms under which the franchise was given, So that the first clause of the Amending Bill of 1874 was struck out because it would have denied what were the intentions of Parliament in conferring on Civil Servants in 1868. Is it desirable in the interests of the public service that a very numerous service, such as the Post Office, should be permitted to combine, in order that they might be able to bring pressure to bear upon Members of Parliament, so as to raise the position of emoluments of their service? And I think, especially in such circumstances as that, that it is particularly desirable that Members of Parliament should be protected from that sort of thing, especially when we are told, as we have been told with regard to the present Motion, that it has been brought forward by the direction of the Central Committee of the Postal Union, or some such party. This is an attempt to bring pressure to bear upon Members of Parliament, in important particulars, and I trust that, whilst the complaints of the Post Office servants and others occupying positions under the Government will always receive careful and generous consideration, they ought not to seek redress by these illegal methods.
    *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The hon. Member for Waltbamstow has raised the difficult problem of endeavouring to reconcile the political rights of the private citizen with the duties and discipline of the public servant, but I am not going to deal, as he has dealt, with the very much larger question of the whole Civil Service. The particular service to which he has drawn attention is that of the Post Office, There are many circum stances which make that the most difficult to deal with, because we have the fact, in the first place, that it is very much the largest of any public department—in fact, I believe that the Post master General, with a staff of 160,000 serving under him, is, perhaps, the largest employer of labour in the world. In addition to that, this service is nearly ubiquitous, and consists of men who, by their duties, are brought more closely into contact with the daily life of the great mass of the

    1131
    people than the servants Of any, other department. What is the position of the Post Office with regard to them? Anybody, I think, reading the first portion of the Amendment of the hon. Member, would have supposed, and I think he must have supposed himself, at the time when he put that Amendment on the paper, that Post Office servants had not the enjoyment of the franchise. That is clear from the Amendment. The hon. Member now knows very well that, in common with all the Civil Servants of the Crown, the Post Office servants have the most perfect right to vote for whom they like, and to exercise their franchise in any way they like. Then he goes on to state that the Post Office servants are not allowed to serve upon electoral committees, or to take part in political agitation, and that is perfectly true. I think, as there has been some complaint that these rules are not sufficiently well known, that perhaps I might inform the House exactly what they are.
    "No postmaster, or other servant of the Department, shall serve on a committee having for its object to promote or prevent the return of a particular candidate to Parliament. He shall not support or oppose any particular candidate or party, either by public speaking or writing."
    It has been implied that the present Postmaster General has gone beyond all other Postmasters General in carrying out this rule. But what is the history of this question as regards the exercise of the political rights of Post Office and Civil Service generally? In 1874 a Bill was brought in by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester. Even after the franchise had been given to public servants in 1868, they were forbidden to take, by word, message, writing, or any other method, any part in the return of a Member to Parliament. That state of things continued up to 1874, when the hon. Member for Gloucester brought in a Bill to repeal the clause by which certain heavy penalties were incurred. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington has implied that the mere fact that the Act abolished these penalties enabled them to take part in partisan warfare to any extent they liked. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester has correctly described the circumstances under
    1132
    which that Bill passed. The Member for Gloucester had, in the first clause of that Bill, inserted words which, undoubtedly, would have had the effect of making it impossible for any Government department to lay down regulations with regard to officials taking an active part in political warfare. Both Mr. Gladstone and Sir Stafford North-cote brought their influence to bear on the hon. Member to induce him to omit that clause, on the distinct ground that it would be impossible for them to agree to a clause tying the hands of the departments, as regards interference in partisan warfare. The words of Mr. Gladstone are worth quoting, because they are very clear and very distinct. Mr. Gladstone said—
    "It is a serious evil to take up these questions on general grounds of philanthropy, and force upon a Government, responsible for their duties, measures which the persons so responsible declared to be incompatible with their due discharge. He should make the suggestion that Parliament should give the vote, and at the same time leave it in the discretion of the Government to prevent officers taking part, beyond giving a simple vote."
    These rules, which I have stated, have not been introduced by us; they were introduced in 1885 by Lord John Manners, who was then Postmaster General. My hon. Friend rather implied that they had been dropped by Mr. Arnold Morley, and that he had introduced conditions which allowed public servants to interfere with political matters; but it is a remarkable fact that within a month of going out of office, Mr. Arnold Morley himself said, in replying to a question put to him as to the privileges of Post-Office servants, that these rules were still in existence, and that they were not only the rules of the Post Office, but they embodied the recognised custom of the whole Civil Service. Probably my hon. Friends sitting below the Gangway—the hon. Member for Walthamstow and the hon. Member for Islington—care as little as I do—and they could not well care less—for mere precedent and authority in such matters. These rules not merely exist, but I think they can be shown to be thoroughly reasonable rules, and I think my hon. Friends the Member for Islington and the Member for Walthamstow have both of them forgotten the great difference

    1133
    in the circumstances of the public servant and the ordinary employee. What private employer could have been held up to the execration of the House, as the Postmaster General has been, for following the recognised rules of his predecessors, and what private employee could have had his case brought forward as has been done to-night with Messrs. Clery and Cheeseman. We must recognise the fact that in this House of Commons, public servants have got a Court of Appeal such as exists with regard to no private employee whatever. It is a Court of Appeal which not only exists with regard to the grievances of classes, and even of individuals, but it is a Court of Appeal which applies even to the wages and duties of classes and individuals, and its functions in that respect are only limited by the common sense of Members, who should exercise caution in bringing forward cases of individuals, because, if political influence is brought to bear in favour of one individual, the chances are that injury is done to some other individual. But, after all, what is the chief distinction between public servants and private employees? One is that the public servant has a permanency of service such as is enjoyed by no private employee. He has an employer who never fails, and who never dies, and the result of that permanency under our political system is that, unlike any private employee, he has to serve two sets of masters with very different views in politics. Now, it is worth while recollecting that it was only in 1868 that the franchise was restored to public servants, or rather restored to the servants of the revenue departments, and it is worth while recollecting also that, when those public servants were disfranchised in 1782, it was done on their own petition, and at their own request. A Bill was brought in in 1782 to disfranchise the servants of the revenue departments—including, of course, the Post Office—by Lord Rockingham, who was then Prime Minister. At that time the Government, through the public service, controlled 70 seats in this House, and Lord North, who had been in power for some 12 years, had sent round notices to certain constituencies, where the public servants were in any way able to turn the scale, that,
    1134
    unless they supported his Party, if he continued in office it would go very hard with them. His opponents also sent round notices that there was a possibility of their coming into office, and if they did come into office, it would go very hard with those public servants who did not vote for them—then they were placed in an awkward position. The result was that they sent up a strong petition for disfranchisement, and a Bill was introduced to deliver the Government from temptation, and the public servants from evil. What is the change that has taken place since 1782? It is not any legal change in the status of those public servants. They remain dismissable at pleasure just as they did in 1782; but the great change that has come is this: both Parties in the State have decided to ignore Party in regard to their treatment of the public servants of the State. The result, of course, is that permanent civil service has become a practical possibility. The result, again, of their being permanent public servants is that they have to serve in turn two different sets of masters. I think it is only reasonable to expect that, as both Parties in the State have dropped Party politics with regard to their employees, the employees should in their turn recognise that fact and drop Party politics with regard to their employers. Moreover, in a graded servant like the public service, every servant in his turn becomes an employer. It is likely that a public servant, who is a strong partisan in his capacity as servant, may also be a strong partisan in his capacity as employer, and it is absolutely necessary that all employers should be above suspicion of Party favouritism. I do not believe there is strong dissatisfaction among our public servants. I believe that a very large proportion of our public servants in all our departments make no complaint of the existing rules. The hon. Member has singled out a certain portion of our public servants—he has singled out the Post Office. I venture to say he has been singularly unfortunate in his choice, because if there are any public servants to whom these rules ought to apply it is the postmen and the telegraphists, who are brought more into contact with their masters—the public—than

    1135
    any other class. Take the case of the postmen: the hon. Member used to represent a mining constituency, and he, I know, is associated with that industry. I will take the case of a Tory postman in a mining village. What would the hon. Member say if that postman, in going his rounds, canvassed for the Tory candidate? He would say that it was a gross abuse of his privileges. Take the case of a postmaster or a telegraphist in a town where an election is proceeding: is it not well in the interests of both Parties that there should be no suspicion of tampering with or disclosing the telegrams for political purposes, that the knowledge that passes through their hands should not be abused? If you allowed them to become strong, active partisans, there is grave risk that they might abuse those privileges. With regard to the service, as a whole, I do not think the hon. Member has made out his case. He has certainly not made it out with regard to the postal service. There are one or two other points which the hon. Member raised with regard to trades unions, and the right of combination. He says the officials of the Post Office refused to recognise the postmen's trade union. I do not know whether he charges the Postmaster General with any departure from the practice of his predecessors. If so, it is a remarkable fact that under no Postmaster General have the trade unions in connection with the Post Office, increased so much as during the last two years. In 1892, when Mr. Arnold Morley came into office, the Telegraph Clerks' Association numbered 5,200; on the 31st December, 1896, they numbered 7,088. In 1892, the Postmen's Federation numbered 5,627; in 1896 they numbered 21,909. In 1896 there was the greatest growth of any year. The Telegraph Clerks' Association increased from 6,254 to 7,088, and the Postmen's Federation by more than 16,000. It is charged that the Postmaster-General takes a different view than that which was taken by Mr. Arnold Morley, and that he denies the right of combination. As this is an important point with the hon. Member, I think it is only fair to quote from a letter which describes the position taken up by Mr. Arnold Morley, and I say that this is exactly the position of the Postmaster General at the present day; and
    1136
    I say that no employer could give greater liberty of combination to his employees than is given by both these Postmasters General.
    "Officers of this Department are at liberty to combine in any way they think proper. They may, except during official hours, meet when and where they like. They are always at liberty to invite Members of Parliament, or any other persons, to their meetings, and to confer with them on their position and prospects; and they are enabled to invest their funds in the Post Office Savings Bank, on the same conditions as other organisations and trade unions. All the privileges which trade uninons enjoy—and, in my opinion, rightly enjoy—are thus accorded to the unions of postal officials.
    But another question is raised, and that is that the Postmaster General will not allow outsiders to represent them at deputations. I am bound to say that, viewed as a matter of common sense, there is a great deal to be said for not letting outsiders argue these cases. In the first place, they have not got the same interests as those who are actually in the trade, and, in the second place, they have not got exactly the same knowledge. This was conveyed to my own observation very remarkably in the case of the inquiry before the Duke of Norfolk and myself in August last. The postmen and telegraphists were represented by two spokesmen, of whom the hon. Member for Islington was one. They profess to have got up the whole case of this complicated service. If there is any man who approaches closely to omniscience, it is the hon. Member for Islington, but I am bound to say, with all respect to him, that he was not quite able to make out his case. The postmen and the telegraphists, however, who were in the Service who know the circumstances and where the shoe pinched, came before us and told us their grievances, and we were at once able to understand them. In this case there are special reasons why these outsiders should not be heard, because these outsiders are Messrs. Clery and Cheeseman, who are dismissed servants. I venture to say that in the case of no private employer would anyone try to force upon him as leaders of a deputation the very men he had dismissed? It has been asked that these men should be restored to the public service. My right hon. Friend

    1137
    has indicated, to some extent at any rate, what happened in regard to these two men, but I do not think that he did justice even to his very strong case, because he had not with him, as I have, the dates on which these various occurrences took place. On the 14th June, 1892, my right hon. Friend, the then Postmaster General, on the report on Supply, gave a warning, and expressed himself very strongly in the interests both of discipline and also the purity of elections, against the members of the service, and especially the Post Office service, bringing their claims as to duty and pay before the attention of candidates. And he was able to say that the then Leaders of the Opposition, including Mr. Gladstone and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouth, concurred in his warning. On the very next day, on the 15th, Mr. Clery, at a meeting of the Fawcett Association, moved that immediate action be taken to secure from the candidates a pledge to support a motion for the appointment of a Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry. On the 17th June my right hon. Friend stated in an official circular that he desired to warn Post Office servants that it would be improper for them, whether in combination or not, to endeavour to extract promises from any candidate with reference to their duties and pay. The very next day a Bill, signed by W. E. Clery, was issued, stating that "the notice in the current Post Office circular does not affect the policy of the Association. "What was the policy of this Association? The hon. Member for Walthamstow has said a great deal about it being so very unjust to deprive these men of the right to go before candidates and lay before them the question of their duty and pay. They have a full right to go before Members of Parliament, and Members of Parliament have a full right to raise their grievances in this House. But such men as Messrs. Clery and Cheeseman are not content with that. What they want to do is to attack the House, as it were, "on its weak side." Speaking at Newcastle-on-Tyne, early in August, 1892, Mr. Clery himself said—
    "They must approach the House on its weak side; they must influence Members through their susceptibilities as opportunity presents
    1138
    itself when candidates appeal to their respective constituencies. A man is never more amenable to reason than when making a request."
    What private employee is able to say, "I am the permanent servant of my employer; I have a share in deciding who that, employer shall be; I will attack him on his weak side when he comes up for re-election, and then I will use my power. I will bring organised pressure to bear throughout the constituencies, and I will make this bargain: that if he will not vote for an increase in my pay, or diminish my duties, then I will not give him my vote." We have done away with personal and individual bribery, but there is a still worse form of bribery, and that is when a man asks a candidate to buy his vote out of the public purse. These men were guilty of a clear breach of the rules of discipline; and if this Motion means anything it is that insubordination is not to be punished. In regard to the circular, which has been issued to Members of Parliament for the purpose of supporting the Motion of the hon Member for Walthamstow, I am glad to see there is no such allusion. It was brought forward in support of his Motion by the very men whose cause he was defending, and what is the case of these men? What they attempted to do is this: That circular, if it means anything means this: that insubordination is not to be punished when it is perpetrated by representative men. The cases quoted there are direct cases of insubordination; and they go further than that, they try to show that in this respect there is a divergence of policy between the policy of the present Postmaster General and that of his predecessor. The late Postmaster General in 1893 laid down a most salutary rule that Post Office servants are free to take part in any political meeting, so long as they abstain from false statements and from scurrilous or insubordinate language, or incitement to insubordination. Mr. Morley afterwards wrote a letter in 1895 declaring that these public servants had all the privileges which trades unions enjoyed, but because Mr. Morley wrote that letter and used that phrase these men seemed to have jumped to the conclusion that that prohibition had been withdrawn, and that if

    1139
    it was proved that these men were representative, they could indulge in any kind of language they liked; and that claim was made in the name of the rights of combination. What are the rights of combination? The rights of combination afforded to trades unions are these: that it shall be perfectly right and legal for 30 men to do what it would have been right and legal for one man to do. All through this remarkable circular there is a very strange confusion of thought. They actually claim what the employees of no private firm would ever claim—namely, that an action which would be insubordinate or illegal, if perpetrated by one man, is not illegal or insubordinate if perpetrated by 30 men. The contention is perfectly absurd. There are three great things which distinguish our permanent public service. There is, in the first place, the remarkable loyalty with which they serve both Parties in the State. Then there is the permanency of their employment. Again, a great feature of that service is that no longer is it a question of favouritism, but promotion by merit is the rule. Those three great features have been slowly built upon this foundation—the elimination altogether of the element of political partisanship from the service. I hope nothing will be done to break down those foundations, on which alone the public service can rest—a service which, for its efficiency, its loyalty, and its high sense of public duty, I do not think surpassed—I doubt whether it is equalled or even approached by the public service of any other country in the world.
    *MR. R. ASCROFT: I think it will be admitted by everyone that the Debate has been conducted with great temper and moderation, and I think that some of the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman cannot possibly carry very great weight—in fact, I hardly think they were intended to do, as we need not fear that the postmen will become active partisans for one Party or the other. I differ also from the right hon. Gentleman, when he objects to the representatives of this union as outsiders. How can you expect them to be anything else? An
    1140
    official in the Post Office would not take that position, and, as indicated by the right hon. Gentleman, they are discharged servants, dismissed for an offence which possibly from the Post Office point of view is serious, though it is not a felony; it is simply a breach of duty, and they are not disqualified from holding such responsible positions, if they have full knowledge. I do not think they ought to be prevented from taking up the post of secretary to the union. They are valuable men, who have served an apprenticeship through a long course of time in that business, and are picked out by their fellow-men as qualified. I would ask the House to allow me—and I do not think the House would refuse—to go into past history for a few moments, though what we have to decide is what is to be the policy in the future. I wish to speak with great moderation. I wish to call the attention of the House to what was done during the last Session but one. We then passed a Bill for the conciliation and prevention of trade disputes. It is admitted that there are grievances and disputes in the Post Office. That cannot be denied, because the result of the recent inquiry, was, I believe, that over £100,000 a year has been paid in remuneration to Post Office servants. These differences will from time to time go on in the future. We passed that Bill, and the object of that Bill was to prevent disputes. Who had to prevent them? Who had to try to prevent them? Whom does he appeal to when disputes arise owing to the leaders of the Unions? It was only last September, when the lamentable dispute arose in the engineering trade, and trade was leaving the country, that I had an opportunity of seeing the leader of the employers' combination and the leader of the trade union walk into the room of the President of the Board of Trade for the purpose of having a talk with him. In other disputes the leader of the Union is called in to assist as the man most eminently qualified to deal with the question. There is nothing about this trade union of the Post Office to be afraid of. In regard to factory legislation, the Home Secretary eventually received deputations representing the workpeople and the employers. The Secretary for the Colonies received a deputation from the

    1141
    miners and factory operatives, and from the colliery proprietors during the discussion last Session on the Compensation for Injuries' Bill. Wherever you have capital and labour engaged, you have on each side representatives of the union, who are qualified to deal with the question. What is it you have to fear? The leaders of the trade union do not approach the employer for the purpose of carrying on or making disputes; they approach the employer for the purpose of conciliation in the first instance. Wherever you have had moderate leaders to approach the masters, the results, as have been proved in scores of cases, have proved most satisfactory. Of course there may be cases where a bad employer takes an unfair advantage of his workmen, and in that case it is not unreasonable that, during the time those men are out of work in consequence, they should be compensated by the trades' union. The leaders of the unions want to find out if the statement is true, and can only do so by going to headquarters. We want to encourage the employees in the Post Office to do everything openly. It would be better for the Government, for the Department, and for the men themselves. When disputes arise, it is above all things necessary to ascertain the true facts. How can that be done, except by means of an interview between the principal parties concerned? What difference is there between the head officials of the Post Office and the heads of a private firm? In Lancashire we settle our disputes by means of meetings between the workpeople and their employers, and the practice has proved so successful that it has been adopted by the iron-workers and other trades. One of the most important clauses in the late agreement between the engineers and their employers was that which provided that the leaders of the Union and the representatives of the employers should, at the commencement of any dispute, meet together for the purpose of settling the issues, and thus avoiding any loss of capital. In the interests of the Post Office and of the trades' unions, which are of great value, and will continue to be so if properly managed, I support the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite. I think we cannot
    1142
    do any possible harm by making the change, and giving this question a fair trial.
    *MR. LUCAS SHADWELL: I do not propose to detain the House at any length. I may remind it there is a strong feeling that the recommendations of Lord Tweedmouth's Committee have not been thoroughly and fairly carried out. I am not altogether in sympathy with the Amendment before the House, for I think there is a very great deal of difficulty in the way of postmen taking part in electoral contests. I gather from the Secretary to the Treasury that these trades unions are not prohibited among Post Office officials, but I do not understand whether they are, in the full sense of the word, recognised. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Department objects to outside interference. I imagine, in that, he refers to certain officials who are outside the Service. I quite see his difficulty in the matter. I am not prepared to go so far as some hon. Members in reference to that, but I think it would be satisfactory to know whether the Post Office will acknowledge these officials if they are in the employ of the Post Office. I think myself it would be far better for the officials of the Postmen's Federation to be in Post Office employment rather than that they should be outsiders. If the Post Office will recognise the Postmen's Federation it is well that the fact should be known to the country at large, because there certainly is an impression in the Post Office service that the Government will not recognise their Union officials. A good deal has been said with reference to circularising Members of Parliament. I think that has been too much dealt with as a grievance. I certainly did not feel any grievance as regards these circulars, and I would far rather receive a circular from a body like that than the letters we often receive from private individuals in their private capacity.
    Question put, "that those words be there added."
    The House divided:—Ayes 86; Noes 163.

    AYES.

    Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    Hammond, John (Carlow)

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Daly, James

    Hayden, John Patrick

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

    Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardgn.)

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

    Asher, Alexander

    Davitt, Michael

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Dilke, Right Hon. Sir Charles

    Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)

    Austin, Sir John (Yorks.)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.

    Bainbridge, Emerson

    Doogan, P. C.

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Doughty, George

    Hogan, James Francis

    Brigg, John

    Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

    Holburn, J. G.

    Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson

    Farrell, J. P. (Cavan, W.)

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Burt, Thomas

    Fenwick, Charles

    Joicey, Sir James

    Caldwell, James

    Finucane, John

    Jones, David Brynmor (S'sea)

    Cameron, Robert (Durham)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Jordan, Jeremiah

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

    Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Gibney, James

    Kilbride, Denis

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Gilhooly, James

    Kinloch, Sir Jno. Geo. Smyth

    Crean, Eugene

    Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

    Lambert, George

    Crombie, John William

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Leng, Sir John

    Lewis, John Herbert

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

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Lough, Thomas

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Stuart, Jas. (Shoreditch)

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    MacAleese, Daniel

    O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

    Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

    MacNeill, Jno. Gordon Swift

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    M'Cartan, Michael

    O'Kelly, James

    Tully, Jasper

    M'Dermott, Patrick

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

    M'Donnell, Dr. M. A. (Qu'n's C.)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Wallace, Robert (Perth)

    M'Ewan, William

    Price, Robert John

    Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Randell, David

    Weir, James Galloway

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

    Maden, John Henry

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Wills, Sir William Herny

    Mandeville, J. Francis

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Roche, Hon. Jas. (E. Kerry)

    Woods, Samuel

    Molloy, Bernard Charles

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carm'th'n)

    Sinclair, Capt. Jno. (Forfars.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Moss, Samuel

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Mr. Herbert Roberts and

    Murnaghan, George

    Souttar, Robinson

    Sir William Wedderburn.

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Spicer, Albert

    NOES.

    Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

    Dane, Richard M.

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Ascroft, Robert

    Davenport, W. Bromley-

    Kemp, George

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Denny, Colonel

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.

    Bagot, Capt. J. Fitzroy

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

    Kimber, Henry

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

    Digby, Jno. K. D. Wingfield-

    King, Sir H. Seymour

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald (Leeds)

    Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Banbury, Fredk. George

    Drage, Geoffrey

    Lawrence, Sir Edw. (Cornwall)

    Barry, Francis T. (Windsor)

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man.)

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

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

    Finch, George H.

    Leighton, Stanley

    Beach, W. W. B. (Hants)

    Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

    Llewelyn, Sir D. (Swansea)

    Beckett, Ernest William

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Begg, Ferdinand Faithful

    Fison, Frederick William

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

    FitzGerald Sir R. U. Penrose

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (L'pool)

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Flannery, Fortescue

    Lopes, Hy. Yarde Buller

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Bigwood, James

    Forster, Henry William

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Bill, Charles

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Garfit, William

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

    Gedge, Sydney

    Maclean, James Mackenzie

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. J.

    Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

    M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

    Brookfield, A. Montagu

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    M'Calmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)

    Butcher, John George

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    M'Iver, Sir Lewis

    Carlile, William Walter

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    M'Killop, James

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

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

    Malcolm, Ian

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

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Cecil, Lord Hugh

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Green, Walford D. (W'dn'sb'y)

    Milbank, Powlett Chas. John

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

    Greville, Captain

    Milner, Sir Frederick George

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Milton, Viscount

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Gunter, Colonel

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Charrington, Spencer

    Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G.

    Monk, Charles James

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. W.

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth)

    Hanson, Sir Reginald

    More, Robert Jasper

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

    Hardy, Laurence

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

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

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Murray, Col Wyndh'm (Bath)

    Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)

    Heath, James

    Newdigate, Francis Alex.

    Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.

    Helder, Augustus

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Cox, Robert

    Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Currie, Sir Donald

    Howard, Joseph

    Pryce-Jones, Edward

    Curzon, Rt Hn. G. N. (Lanc. SW)

    Howell, William Tudor

    Purvis, Robert

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)

    Hutton, J. (Yorks, N. R.)

    Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

    1106

    1107

    Renshaw, Charles

    Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Richardson, Sir T. (H'rtlep'l)

    Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

    Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

    Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

    Stanley, Lord (Lancashire)

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I. Wight)

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. G. Thomson

    Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

    Wentworth, B. C. Vernon-

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Round, James

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Taylor, Francis

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

    Thorburn, Walter

    Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh N.)

    Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

    Seton-Karr, Henry

    Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

    Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renf.)

    Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

    Wanklyn, James Leslie

    Sir William Walrond and

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Warkworth, Lord

    Mr. Anstruther.

    AYES.

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carm'th'n)

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

    Gibney, James

    Morton, Edw. J. C. (D'nprt.)

    Allison, Robert Andrew

    Gilhooly, James

    Moss, Samuel

    Ascroft, Robert

    Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

    Murnaghan, George

    Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Bainbridge, Emerson

    Hammond, John (Carlow)

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Brigg, John

    Hayne, Rt. Hn. C. Seale-

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Burt, Thomas

    Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Caldwell, James

    Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.

    Price, Robert John

    Cameron, Robert (Durham)

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

    Randell, David

    Caryill, Patrick Geo. H.

    Hogan, Jas. Francis

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Cawley, Frederick

    Holburn, J. G.

    Roche, Hon. Jas. (E. Kerry)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Joicey, Sir James

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithn's-sh.)

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Souttar, Robinson

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Strachey, Edward

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Kilbride, Denis

    Stuart, Jas. (Shoreditch)

    Crean Eugene

    Knox, Edmund Francis Vesey

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Crilly, Daniel

    Lambert, George

    Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

    Curran, Thos. (Sligo, S.)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Daly, James

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Tully, Jasper

    Davies, M. Vaughan (Card'n.)

    MacAleese, Daniel

    Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

    Davitt, Michael

    MacNeill, Jno. Gordon Swift

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Doogan, P. C.

    M'Cartan, Michael

    Weir, James Galloway

    Doughty, George

    M'Donnell, Dr. M. A. (Qu'n's C.)

    Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

    Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Fenwick, Charles

    Mandeville, J. Francis

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Finucane, John

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Mr. Woods and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Molloy, Bernard Charles

    NOES.

    Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Green, Walford D. (W'dn'sb'y)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Crombie, John William

    Greene, Hny. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzR'y

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Greville, Captain

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

    Gull, Sir Cameron

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

    Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lanc. S. W.)

    Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G.

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald (Leeds)

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)

    Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. W.

    Banbury, Fredk. George

    Dane, Richard M.

    Hanson, Sir Reginald

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

    Hardy, Laurence

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

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

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Begg, Ferdinand Faithful

    Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

    Heath, James

    Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Helder, Augustus

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

    Bigwood, James

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

    Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man.)

    Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)

    Bowles, T. G. (Lynn Regis)

    Finch, George H.

    Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. J.

    Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

    Howell, William Tudor

    Brookfield, A. Montagu

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Fison Frederick William

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

    FitzGerald, Sir R. U. Penrose

    Kemp, George

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

    Flannery, Fortescue

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Kimber, Henry

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Flower, Ernest

    King, Sir H. Seymour

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

    Forster, Henry William

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Foster, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Lawrence, Sir Edw. (Cornwall)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Garfit, William

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Charrington, Spencer

    Gedge, Sydney

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

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

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Llewelyn, Sir D-. (Swansea)

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

    Long, Rt. Hn. W. (L'pool)

    Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Lopes, Hy. Yarde Buller

    Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg'w)

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    1144

    1145

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

    Maclean, James Mackenzie

    Richardson, Sir T. (H'rtlep'l)

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

    Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

    Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

    McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

    Wanklyn, James Leslie

    Milbank, Powlett Chas. John

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Warkworth, Lord

    Milner, Sir Frederick George

    Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Milton, Viscount

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I. Wight)

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Wentworth, B. C. Vernon-

    More, Robert Jasper

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

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

    Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancashire)

    Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh N.)

    Murray, Col. Wyndh'm (Bath)

    Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

    Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks)

    Nicol, Donald Niman

    Stephens, Henry Charles

    Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

    Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Strauss, Arthur

    Pryce-Jones, Edward

    Sutherland, Sir Thomas

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Purvis, Robert

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Sir William Walrond and

    Pym, C. Guy

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Mr. Anstruther.

    Main Question again proposed.

    DEPORTATION OF PAUPERS TO IRELAND.
    MR. JAMES DALY: Mr. Speaker,—I beg to move the following Amendment to the Gracious Address of Her Majesty the Queen—
    "And we humbly represent to Your Majesty the great regret of this House that no reference has been made in Your Majesty's Speech regarding a Bill to discontinue the deportation of paupers from Great Britain to Ireland."
    Sir, this is a very old grievance. It is a grievance that Irish Members have had to bring before this House for the last 50 years. Irish representatives have to complain of their poor, who live in this country, not being treated in the same way as the English or Scotch poor. Twelve months ago I moved an Amendment on the same subject, and at that time the Chief Secretary for Ireland promised that he would try and secure a conference of the Local Government Boards of England, Scotland, and Ireland. The Local Government Boards of England and Ireland were willing to hold a conference on this subject, but the Local Government Board of Scotland refused. The result was that this matter, which should have been decided years ago, has been left undecided yet. I see the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate for Scotland in this House, and I hope he has repented and will be able to make a statement to the effect that he will bring
    1146
    the Local Government Boards together, so that means may be devised for dealing with the case of these paupers. Sir, in the matter of this grievance I have the support of all political parties in Ireland, and a question on which Irish Members think alike should not be difficult of settlement. Not only are the Irish, but last June, when I brought forward this question on the salary of the Lord Advocate for Scotland, both Scotch and English Members, Liberal and Conservative, agreed that it was time this grievance was settled. Sir, I feel obliged to hon. Members on both sides of the House for their sympathy, and I am sure that this is a matter the Government will have no difficulty in settling if only they take it in earnest. It strikes me as very strange that, while the Local Government Boards for England and Ireland were anxious to settle this matter, the Local Government Board for Scotland should object. But, Mr. Speaker, it is only when an Irish grievance comes before the House that a difficulty exists amongst Her Majesty's Government in finding some means of legislating to settle it, no matter how great the grievance may be But I do not intend to labour this question. I hope the Government will find some means of settlement, or give some expression of opinion, that a Bill will be introduced to settle this long-standing grievance. It has existed for over 50 years. In 1853, so great was the grievance in England itself, that the Government of the day promised that, if returned at the next General Election, they would bring

    1147
    in a Bill to deal with the question as regards the settlement of paupers in England and Wales. The Government—it was a Liberal Government—was returned to power, and a Bill was introduced to deal with the settlement of paupers in this country. The Irish Members were anxious that Irish paupers should be included in this Bill, but the Government declined, and the Bill was limited to England and Wales. Sir, when justice is to be done to Ireland, large majorities are to be found to vote down the claims of that country, and it is not surprising that, in 1853, a Liberal Government should pass a Bill in this House to deal with the settlement of paupers in England and Wales, and would not settle the same question with regard to Ireland. Now, Sir, I think that Irishmen have been long enough kept in the cold with regard to this question. I think this Government has promised a Bill on this subject would be one of the Measures to be introduced. In 1896 I moved for a Return in this House with regard to the deportation of paupers sent back from Scotland to Ireland. I moved for that Return on account of a statement by a pauper who was sent back, that a single attendant had to look after 32 of these poor creatures. This is not a hearsay case. The pauper, an old man, 60 or 70 years of age, made a declaration to that effect, and I have no doubt that a man of that age would not make any but a truthful declaration. The old man was also under the impression, from what he heard amongst these unfortunate creatures, that several were inclined to jump overboard rather than come back to Ireland to be charged upon the rates. Sir, it is an intolerable disgrace that a man who has spent 40 or 50 years in Scotland, helping to build up the country by his labour, should, when he gets old, and obliged to enter the workhouse, be sent by the authorities back to Ireland to be charged upon the rates of a country to which he has never contributed a penny by his industry. I hope to see this grievance remedied this Sessions. The First Lord of the Treasury, to whom I wrote last Session, promised that he would give this matter his consideration. I hope he has, and that the Government will be prepared to bring in a Bill to stop this great grievance of the Irish ratepayers.
    MR. GEORGE MURNAGHAN: I beg to second the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan. After a period of 44 years representatives from Ireland stand on the floor of this House to make a demand that was acceded to by the Government of 1853, and hon. Gentlemen may sneer, and they may laugh, and they may think that it is all very well for the Irish representatives to come here and have a field day occasion ally to ventilate their grievances; they can be put off with a few sweet words to the effect that the matter will be attended to during the Session. "We admit," they say, "that the grievance is great, and that the hardship must be re moved; and we will try and see what we can do to remove it." Sir, the Chief Secretary for Ireland declared in this House that this was a real Irish grievance. On the 24th February, 1854, the Irish representatives in this House were told by the Government of the day that the treatment of Ireland in regard to the deportation of paupers, was an in justice and a hardship, and that it was the intention of the Government at no distant day to remove that hardship. Sir, that day is still distant; it has been distant since 1854. Hon. Gentlemen ought to be ashamed to declare that they cannot legislate for Irish grievances. Either they cannot or they will not; it must be one or the other, because here is a grievance, and it has been allowed to be unsettled for almost half a century. Now the Chief Secretary can turn to his colleagues, and smile, and laugh, and say: "Is it not very amusing for the Member for Mid Tyrone to use these words in this House?" Sir, I consider it my duty to use these words. I consider I have no apology to make to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or to the Lord Advocate for Scotland, or to any other Minister in giving voice to what is admittedly a grievance of, and hardship upon the people of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman may say that this is a small matter; but I maintain that it is a considerable matter, and a most considerable hardship. You have, for the last 50 years, been deporting from Scotland, and sending to Ireland, men who have spent their days in labouring and toiling in your fields and in your workshops. You consider it is right that you should get rid of them in their old age,

    1149
    and send them to the workhouses in Ireland, where they may spend the remainder of their days, far from the associations formed in recent years. It is a hardship, not only upon the ratepayers of Ireland, but upon these poor people, to remove them from their families and associations, and bury them within the walls of workhouses in Ireland. I want to hear from the Lord Advocate to-night your expressions of opinion as to what he is going to do. I do not think my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment will do his full duty if he is satisfied with taking what I took last year, a sympathetic promise to see the Scotch Local Government Board, and try if something cannot be arranged. What is the Chief Secretary there for? Sir, I would not undertake a business I could not manage. I am a humbler man than the Chief Secretary for Ireland, but I would not make a promise I could not keep. The Chief Secretary for Ireland promised a thing and has not done it. This is not a subject for laughter—it is a matter of serious importance. You and your predecessors for 50 years have admitted the grievance and therefore, I say the present Unionist Government, with its great majority does not amount to anything, in my opinion, if it cannot settle this question. Sir, the Government has made no step in advance; they are satisfied to put in their six or seven years of office without any working. The hon. Member for South Tyrone may laugh. I have as good a right to speak here as he has; I was returned by a majority almost ten times as large, and I am doing my duty here—I am advocating the removal of a grievance, and I ask the Lord Advocate to give some expression to the views of the Government in this matter.
    MR. SPEAKERput the Amendment.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The hon. Member who moved the Amendment put forward the Scottish Office as the head and front of the offending party in this matter, and I gather from the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid Tyrone that he takes the same view. I am not altogether able to reconcile that view with the declarations of the Member for Mid
    1150
    Tyrone that this shows how impotent this Parliament was to deal with Irish grievances; because what was wanted was an Amendment in the law of Scotland. I leave it to the hon. Member that if, as he says, he would not have a business unless he could run it, how, in a Parliament for Ireland, he proposes to amend the law of Scotland. But I am not here to ask apologies or to give one. I am quite able to defend the actions of the Scottish Office in refusing to go into conference on this subject with the Local Government Board of England and the Local Government Board of Ireland. Of course the Scotch Board could only have gone in on terms of equal representation. In this matter, the Scotch Board acts only in accordance with its own law, and we did not think it was proper for the people of Scotland to submit their laws of settlement to the practical arbitration of the laws of England and Ireland.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The three countries are run by Scotchmen.
    MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: The hon. Member for Mid Tyrone says that in June the Government promised to do what it could in this matter. Well, Sir, following that promise, the Secretary for Scotland appointed a departmental committee of experts to deal with the subject, and, of course, with the general matter, connected with the Scotch case, because it is evident we cannot deal with the subject referred to in the Amendment entirely alone; it would necessitate certain alterations in the Law of Settlement in Scotland. Sir, I am able to inform the hon. Member that, upon the report of that Departmental Committee, we have framed a Bill which is not in the pigeonhole. I have seen it, and read it, and, although I do not say it does everything the hon. Member for Mid Tyrone would wish, yet I think it thoroughly removes any legitimate grievance in this matter. That Bill, I hope, if the progress of business allows, at no very distant day, to have the opportunity of submitting to the House, I believe when we do so, it will be found that, having due regard to public opinion in Scotland, we shall have mitigated the grievances about the deportation of paupers. I hope hon. Members on both sides will be satisfied.
    MR. W. JOHNSTON: Sir, I desire to inform the House that this is a question upon which Irish Members on both sides are in perfect accord with the hon. Members from Monaghan and Tyrone. I hope we shall not have this matter put off for another Session. I am sure there will be no opposition from any Irish representative, and I trust the Lord Advocate will see his way to introduce the Bill on a very early date.
    MR. DALY: After the very satisfactory reply of the Lord Advocate, I beg to withdraw my Amendment. I trust the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate will introduce this Bill as soon as possible.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question again proposed.

    FOOD ADULTERATION.
    *MR. H. E. KEARLEY: Sir, I beg to move the following Amendment to the Address:—
    "And we venture humbly to represent to Your Majesty the urgent need of a measure for checking the widespread adulteration of food products, and to express our regret that no assurance is given that such a measure will be proposed to this House during the present Session of Parliament."
    I move this Amendment because, Sir, I believe that legislation should be introduced on a subject that is pressing, and that has been urged upon the attention of the House by me on three previous occasions. I am aware that there is a reference in Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech of the intention of the Government to legislate on this important matter this Session if time permits. But as the Leader of the Opposition reminded us, these promises are what he termed "uninsurable lives," and, as I regard this question as of the most pressing importance, I felt that I should lose an opportunity unless I put down an Amendment with the object of ventilating the subject once more. But there is another reason which actuated me, and that is
    1152
    that last year, at the end of the Session, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, in fulfilment of a pledge by the Leader of the House, introduced a Bill, which, instead of proceeding on the lines of the recommendations of the Select Committee, which sat three Sessions, and collected most voluminous and important evidence, and made 23 important recommendations, ignored the majority of these recommendations. Sir, I think I am correct in saying that that Bill was remarkable, not for what it recommended, but for what it failed to recommend, and, though not desiring to be disrespectful to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, I am entitled to say that he, in that Bill, was trifling with a great national question. He not only disregarded the bulk of the recommendations of the Select Committee, but he seemed to go specially out of his way to disregard the most important of them, and things upon which we were unanimous. It was pointed out to the Select Committee that the administration of the present Acts was altogether most faulty, and it was also proved by statistical facts that there was an intimate connection between the amount of adulteration which existed and the number of samples taken throughout the country. For example, in Somersetshire, one sample was taken for every 379 inhabitants, and the percentage of adulteration disclosed was 3.6. In Bedfordshire, one sample to every 821 inhabitants disclosed 7.1 of adulteration. In Oxfordshire, one sample to every 15,000 revealed 41 per cent. of falsification. In Marylebone, where the Acts are rigorously enforced, the percentage of adulteration in milk was only four per cent., but in St. Pancras, a parish where the administration is most lax, the amount of adulteration went as high as 43 per cent. In the face of these figures it would have been thought that a provision would have been put into the Bill compelling Local Authorities to undertake prosecutions for adulteration, but the right hon. Gentleman thought it sufficient to declare it to be their duty to put the Act into force. Well, it is the duty of every man to be honest, but I doubt very much whether the percentage of dishonesty would be as

    1153
    low in this country as it is if there were not Acts of Parliament to enforce honesty. Local Authorities will not carry out those Acts, as is proved by the figures I have quoted, unless there is some power to force them so to do. In the Report is sued by the Local Government Board every year, hon. Members will find tabulated a list of defaulting Authorities not in connection with the administration of Acts dealing with our food supply, but in connection with the administration of the Public Health Act. The Board have repeatedly taken action against local authorities for neglect, of their duties in such matters as the provision of pure water, sanitary drainage systems, and so forth. I confess I cannot differentiate between the duty of a local authority to supply its inhabitants with pure water, and its duty to see that they are supplied with pure food; and I am encouraged to hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see the necessity of taking some action to compel enforcement of the Acts dealing with food by the fact that I find that where the Public Health Act is enforced the result is most satisfactory. If the local authority has been dilatory, and, the Local Government Board has applied for a Mandamus, there is not a single case in which the local authority has dared to refuse to enforce the Act after a peremptory command by the High Court. I will venture to quote to the House a few additional figures to show the different results between a vigorous administration and an apathetic administration of these Acts. I will take the case of two great towns, London and Manchester. London has a, very bad reputation as regards adulteration, and the reason is, because the Acts are not enforced. Manchester, on the other hand, has a great reputation in the contrary direction, having spent large sums of money in the provision of Inspectors to watch over the interests of the community. I will take the figures with regard to the adulteration of milk, and I will deal with six parishes of London as typical of the whole. In Clerkenwell, the number of samples inspected was 148, and no less than 37 proved to have been adulterated. In Hackney 177 samples were taken, of which 52 were adulterated; in St. Olave's 51 per cent. were found
    1154
    to be adulterated; in St. Pancras 39 per cent.; in St. George's, Hanover Square (perhaps that will touch some hon. Gentlemen in this House more closely than the outlying parishes, because a great many of us live there) no less than 36 per cent.; and in aristocratic Kensington 31 per cent. Those are the figures given in the last Local Government Report as affecting London. Now, what are the figures as affecting Manchester and Salford? A far larger number of samples were taken, proving the argument I used just now, that the larger the number of samples taken—the greater activity shown in enforcing the Act—the less adulteration is found. In Manchester, out of 1,167 samples taken, the percentage of cases of adulteration was as low as 3 per cent.; in Salford, out of 421 samples taken, there were only 10 ćases of adulteration, under 3 per cent. These are not figures I have myself collected; they are found in the last Report of the Local Government Board. But I think it is fair to point out that these figures do not in any way represent the true extent of the adulteration, for this reason: The public analysts of this country have resorted to a very low standard for the testing of milk, and their justification of that is this: They have discovered that the Official Analysts at Somerset House have set up, and have continued to maintain for some years, a very low standard. Now, a public analyst has a reputation of his own to maintain, and it is not surprising that he will not advise a prosecution based on the standard of purity which he himself might think proper to adopt, when that prosecution would be certain to be defeated by an appeal to the lower standard of Somerset House. This brings me to my second criticism of the Bill that was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman last Session. There were some points of difference between the Members of the Committee, but on this one question to which I am about to refer there was absolute unanimity, and that was that, seeing the various technical and scientific questions that had to be determined in connection with adulteration, it was impossible for public analysts to satisfactorily discharge their duties unless there was some Board or Court of Reference, consisting of

    1155
    experts competent to give an unbiassed opinion on these various questions, such, for example, as the standard of purity in milk, the amount of water to be allowed in butter, the amount of "preservatives" to be allowed in butter and milk, and other articles. The Committee unanimously decided that those were questions to be settled by a Technical Board, and they therefore unanimously recommended that this Court of Reference should be appointed. I will not trouble the House with the details; but the right hon. Gentleman in his Bill absolutely ignored that recommendation altogether. It was extraordinary that he did so, inasmuch as the Report that the Committee agreed to was drawn up by the responsible officials of the Local Government Board. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman himself drew it up, but it was drawn up by one of the permanent officials of the Department. Now, if that Report cannot be accepted by the Local Government Board for whom it was drawn, we are entitled to ask the reason why. I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone, who gave so much attention to this question when he was Chairman of the Committee, as well as my hon. Friend sitting below me, what explanation they can give? I want to know why, in spite of the labours of this Committee during three Sessions, which resulted in a practically unanimous report, we should have proffered to us a Bill which not only ignores the majority of the recommendations of the Committee, but also absolutely ignores those in which we were absolutely unanimous. It is suggested that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Agriculture is responsible. I will never believe that till I hear him say it. That the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture should desire that we should not get the benefit of the labours of his friends who were so active upon that Select Committee seems to me most extraordinary. Now, I want to show the necessity of this Board of Reference by instancing the matter of preservatives. It has become the custom to introduce preservatives into milk, and butter, and cheese, and other articles, to keep them fresh for a longer period than would otherwise be possible. I am not competent
    1156
    to express a scientific opinion upon the matter myself, but in the last Report of the Local Government Board it is pointed out that in Birmingham there were cases in which samples of milk contained no less than from 50 to 70 grains of boracic acid per gallon, and in Glamorganshire the practice of putting preservatives into milk was so common that, as the milk naturally passed from hand to hand, each man who handled it thought he would like it to keep fresh, and added an additional dose of this compound, until in some cases a distinctly poisonous dose was reached. All this evidence came before the Select Committee, but they were, of course, not competent to deal with it; we were not analysts; we could not say whether boracic acid was good or not; but we unanimously agreed that we should recommend the appointment of an expert Board, and I am anxious to know what reason the right hon. Gentleman can give for ignoring that recommendation. This matter was referred to in the course of the evidence by representatives of the Corporation of Manchester, the Corporation of Glasgow—I forget whether the Corporation of London did not also recommend it—by farmers, importers, distributors, public analysts, and, above all, by the Official Analyst of Somerset House. In spite of all that important evidence, the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman introduced last Session failed to refer to it, or to introduce the provisions that we worked for so hard. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to delay the House, but there is one aspect of this question that I must refer to before I sit down. I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House in his place, because last year he gave a promise that we should have a Bill which should satisfactorily deal with these matters. No Bill will be satisfactory that does not embrace at all events, the main recommendations of the Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said that he feared that this was a contentious question, because it might resolve itself into a question between town and country. Now, I say it is not true to suggest that this is a question of country against towns, at all events in the sense suggested. I maintain that the question is a consumers' question, and this House ought to view it independently of any

    1157
    supposed conflict of interest between country and town. I know that the influence of the Agricultural Party in this House is not always discreetly used, but, in this case, what is demanded has nothing to do with the Agricultural Party. I take up the question purely in the interests of the consumer, and I hope the House will so regard it, whatever particular interests may have to say. If I were asked to go into this question of the respective interests involved, I should be obliged to say that this is more of a townsman's than a countryman's question for this reason: The towns are the field of operations of the adulterater. It is to the towns, in the main, that the goods that are adulterated are sent; and, while I decline to be drawn into a controversy between town and country, I do make this definite statement; that, while we want to stop adulteration, we should strongly resist any attempt on the part of any interest to interfere with the free importation of foreign food into this country. Adulteration must be stopped, but there must be no attempt to make this a lever for interference to the importation of food from abroad. I have referred chiefly to milk, and I am not going to weary the House now with statistics as to butter and other things; but I should just say this: So persistent has this evil become, and so apathetic are many local authorities in dealing with it, that it has been found necessary, in the large towns of England, for consumers to combine together, and start what is practically their own police, to hunt down the offenders, and put a stop to this great evil. I have here a list of convictions obtained by one of these bodies—a very influentially supported association formed in London. The first case I have marked is one of a vestryman in Hackney—a member of the very body entrusted with the administration of the Acts under the present system. There are no less than eight members of one of our London vestries who have been convicted of adulteration; and these convictions, the House will remember, were secured, not by those whose duty it is to see that the law is obeyed, but it was simply by the organisation of this kind of private police that these men were run to earth. In some of these cases milk was found to have been adulterated
    1158
    with no less than 50 per cent. of water. Hon. Members may think of the iniquity of finding that what is left at their doors as milk consists of half milk and half water; but, of course, this fraud is carried on principally in the poorer districts; it is not the wealthy, but the poor districts of London and other great cities that are the happy hunting-ground of the adulterater. Sir, I sincerely hope that we shall have some satisfaction to-night, in the shape of a promise that a Bill will be introduced at an early date in the Session—not, as it was last year, on the expiring day of the Session. What we want is immediate legislation, and effective legislation. And I, again, ask why a Bill should not embody the proposals recommended in the admirable report of the Select Committee, which worked so hard upon this matter. There were some Amendments proposed to the Report by my agricultural friends below me, with which I had no sympathy whatever, and I did my best to defeat those proposals, but I hope to hear before the discussion closes my hon. Friend explain why it is that, in spite of the fact that he drafted a most admirable Report, he lent himself to bringing in a Bill which absolutely ignored the best of the recommendations unanimously made by the Committee. Sir, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
    *MR. G. LAMBERT: Sir, I beg to second the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend. While he speaks so well for the consumer, I have a tender feeling for the producer, representing, as I do, an agricultural county, which produces a very considerable amount of dairy produce. There cannot be any doubt that a very large amount of fraud exists in regard to the sale of articles of food, and especially in regard to the sale of margarine for butter. It is a remarkable fact that while the largest amount of margarine imported into this country is from Holland—no less than 93 per cent. of the margarine coming into this country is imported from Holland—there is, at the same time, a great increase in the importation of butter from that country amounting to 165,000cwts. in 1894

    1159
    to no less than 275,000cwts. in 1897. For my own part, I have a strong suspicion that this so-called butter is adulterated with margarine. In most countries on the Continent they will not allow the sale of this stuff as butter; there is very stringent legislation against it; but this country is made the dumping-ground for this refuse, and we want to stop that, not only in the interests of agriculturists, but in the interests of consumers as well. It was brought out before the Committee that this stuff is sent over here in packages so marked as to lead to the impression that it is pure and genuine butter. This is the kind of thing we want to put a stop to. I am very glad indeed to have been instrumental in inserting in the Report, the very admirable Report, of that Committee (and I am glad to say that I received the support of some hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House) a paragraph prohibiting the colouring of margarine, or the marking of it so as to make it resemble butter. You may have as many inspectors as you like, but if you wish to put a stop to this fraud you must make the buyer his own inspector. We are told that the working classes would suffer by any restrictions on the sale of margarine. Well, I do not for a moment believe that the working classes are dying to be deceived in this way, and all we desire to do is to protect them against deceit and fraud. I will not further detain the House, but I may just say this: The Bill introduced last Session by the right hon. Gentleman proved abortive, and we cannot be surprised that it did. It was condemned by all agricultural bodies, who expressed an opinion upon it. At a recent meeting somewhere in the Eastern counties of the National Agricultural Union, one speaker said he did not believe that the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Local Government Board had even seen the Bill which he himself had introduced. Sir, agriculturists have a very great faith in the right hon. Gentleman; he has grown thin, I might almost say, in working for agricultural interests; I do hope that he will not allow his great reputation with agriculturists to be shattered, and it will be shattered unless he will bring in a really good and thoroughgoing Measure dealing with this subject. All his efforts in the way of reducing
    1160
    rates, and all the other reforms by which he has endeavoured to benefit the agricultural interests, will be overlooked, and he will find that his reputation will be sunk in a mess of margarine. I beg, Sir, to second the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, at the end of the Questions, to add the words,—
    "And we venture humbly to represent to Your Majesty the urgent need of a Measure for checking the widespread adulteration of food products, and to express our regret that no assurance is given that such a Measure will be proposed to this House during the present Session of Parliament."—(Mr. Kearley.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added:"
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr CHAPLIN,): I am aware of the great interest which the Lon. Gentlemen opposite have for a long period taken in this question, and I can assure them and the House that I am quite as anxious to introduce and proceed with a Bill upon this subject as they can be. I entirely agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down, in his desire to prevent fraud, and to prevent the importation of adulterated articles of food. Now, the hon. Member, who moved the Amendment, complained that no promise had been given to the House on the part of the Government that this question would be presented for the consideration of the House. Sir, the subject is mentioned in the Queen's Speech, and although I frankly admit that there is only a qualified reference to it in the Speech, yet hon. Members must remember that no assurance that could be given could be absolute, unless, indeed, it was an assurance that this should be the first Measure undertaken by the Government. Well, the hon. Gentlemen opposite know just as well as I do that, considering the business which is at present before the House, it is impossible that we could give any assurance of that kind. But short of that I can say this: that I am, and have been for some time, busily engaged in the preparation of a Bill dealing with this

    1161
    question, in the hope of amending soma, at all events, of the evils of which they complain. Although it may be possible that I should find some things in the Report of the Committee, to which the hon. Member has referred, with which I am unable to agree, yet I am as anxious as he is to make progress with this Measure, and to introduce a Bill on the subject, which I hope will be met, if not with complete satisfaction, at all events with no hostile feelings on the part of the hon. Gentleman and his friends. They must remember that, in spite of what the hon. Gentleman has said, the interests involved in this question are extremely conflicting. If I were to introduce a Bill modelled precisely on the lines of the Report of the Select Committee that Bill would have no earthly chance of passing into law in the course of the present Session. I could not imagine anything that would be more contentious or likely to give rise to great differences of opinion. But, short of that, I think a Measure may be produced which ought to have a reasonable chance of giving satisfaction, and of making progress during the present Session. I hope to be able to introduce a Bill, and if it be found impracticable to send it, in the ordinary way, to a Select Committee—because, of course, a Measure of that kind must be full of technicalities—it might be sent to one of our Grand Committees. Sir, I have listened to everything which the hon. Member has said, but it is impossible in a matter of this sort that I can follow him in the discussion of all the details into which he went so fully, nor am I for a moment going to be inveigled by him into a defence of the Measure introduced last Session. I hope the Measure, upon the preparation of which we are now engaged, will be more satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman and his friends.
    SIR WALTER FOSTER: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has only given us a repetition of the qualified assurance contained in the Queen's Speech. I had hoped that he would have seen his way to go a little further. I had for two years the honour of presiding over the Committee to which reference has been made. The
    1162
    inquiry extended over many long and tedious sittings, and involved the taking of a vast amount of evidence. There is no doubt that the result of that inquiry was to demonstrate the existence throughout the country of a very widespread evil, affecting a large number of articles of food. It is the duty of the State, where the public are not able to protect themselves against frauds of this kind, not only against their pockets, but against health, to step in and do something to put down the frauds. That being the case, one naturally inquires why this large amount of adulteration is allowed to go on. This brings us to the second thing that the Committee were convinced of. They were convinced not only by evidence, but also by discussion, as shown by the Report which they finally made, that a large amount of this adulteration was due to a lax administration of the law, and, thirdly, that this lax administration was favoured by the difficulty in securing convictions, owing to the fact that there was no authority to fix standards of purity. Those three points having been brought out thoroughly by the evidence before the Committee, and endorsed by the Committee in their Report, there naturally ought to have been in any Bill presented to Parliament some endeavour to meet these three great evils. I am sorry to say that, in spite of the goodwill of the Local Government Board, the Bill of last year was not a satisfactory Bill, when we consider the evidence taken by the Committee and the report they made. I hope that we shall have some assurance that in the Bill to be introduced this Session the Government will deal with the matter more boldly. I am quite aware that this is a very difficult question, one of the most difficult, perhaps, that any Government could have to tackle, affecting both private and public interests. My hon. Friend behind me, who seconded this Amendment, has referred in some detail to the adulteration of butter, and the importation of margarine. Perhaps I may support the case he was making by mentioning a little story I heard the other day, which illustrates the position of margarine under the present defective administration of the law. Two

    1163
    commercial travellers got into a dispute as to the pronunciation of this word, one arguing that it should be pronounced "marjarine," and the other arguing for "margarine." Ultimately they wrote the word on a piece of paper, and handed it to the shopman at a place where the stuff was sold, and asked him what he called the stuff described on the paper. His answer was, "Well, I call it 'butter'; it would be as much as my place is worth to call it anything else." There is no doubt that margarine has won its way into use in this country as an article of food, and we had plenty of evidence before the Committee that it is not unwholesome or injurious, and it is a cheap substitute for butter. I regret to say that it is often brought into this country and sold largely mixed with butter. The importation of margarine is, however, on the decrease. There is another substance infinitely more important from the point of view of adulteration than margarine, and that is cheese. There is an enormous amount of so-called cheese coming into this country which consists of certain milk products mixed with a lot of fat; if it is kept for a few days it becomes putrid. Last year we imported nearly £6,000,000 worth of cheese—some of which is called filled cheese—and is unfit for human consumption. The House will agree that, in the interests of consumers, and in the interests of our own producers of wholesome cheese, this should be put a stop to. I do press upon the right hon. Gentleman, and the Government generally, the necessity of dealing thoroughly with this subject. I do not think any Measure will be satisfactory which does not provide for compelling local authorities to properly administer the law. I also agree with my hon. Friend in urging the appointment of a Court of Reference of the kind contemplated by the Committee—a body of experts who will fix standards of purity and decide other technical matters. Unless some such authority is created there will always be difficulties in enforcing the provisions of the Act.
    SIR MARK J. M. STEWART: Although there can be no doubt that this is rather a thorny and difficult question to deal with, the
    1164
    Government themselves must know that there has been a very great advance in public opinion in regard to it within the last few years. A very few years ago you could hardly find (with, I think, one exception) in England or Scotland a single agriculturist who would have anything to do with analysis. I took a somewhat prominent part in this matter, having had, I was going to say, many hundred samples analysed, and succeeded in bringing many farmers to book—farmers who did not intend to deceive, but who sold stuff of the most disgraceful character. With regard to margarine, it must be remembered that it is not an unwholesome food, and it is one which a large portion of the community like. What we have to contend with is the adulterated butter which is sold in such large quantities. I quite agree with what has been said with regard to the necessity of a Court of Reference, consisting of fair and reliable analysts, to whom samples could be sent, and whose analyses would have weight and authority. At present, if I send a sample of butter or cheese to one chemist, and another sample of the same stuff to another chemist, the chances are that I get two irreconcilable analyses; because they have not one uniform standard to be guided by; and the same thing holds good with regard to another and a very vital question—the question of condensed milk. There is another agricultural subject about which the greatest possible care should be taken, I mean in relation to our dairies. When you visit the places out of which the milk comes that is sent to us from Denmark and other parts of the Continent, no one could believe that that milk comes into this country in a wholesome condition. For these reasons, Sir, I do ask the Government to bring in a good strong Measure. We, on this side, want to stiffen their backs, because, unless we can have a really effective Measure we had better have no Measure at all.
    *MR. W. STRACHEY: I hope that the First Lord of the Treasury will be able to give us a more definite assurance than we have had from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. All the right hon. Gentleman gave us was a qualified assurance that a

    1165
    Bill of some sort would be introduced in the course of the Session. That is exactly what was said by the Government last Session when this subject was raised on the Address, and my hon. Friend did not press the matter to a Division. I hope that, having that experience, my Friend will now act differently, unless he has some absolute assurance. Some of us will not be satisfied except by the assurance that a Bill will be brought in and sent to a Grand Committee. If, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the Bill will be so full of technicalities that it must be sent to a Grand Committee, let it be brought in immediately, so that the Committee may set to work upon it; do not, as you did before, wait till the last days of the Session, when it is impossible for it to be passed into law. I certainly think this matter, in which the producers of this country, as well as the consumers, and last, but not least, the retailers, are so deeply interested, should be no longer trifled with. Hon. Members who represent agricultural constituencies will agree that this is a question on which the farmers of this country feel very strongly indeed. They consider it most unfair that their own products should be handicapped by the sale of adulterated cheese and adulterated butter from abroad; and while I, for one, shall always advocate the free importation into this country of articles of food, I do strongly object to the free importation of adulterated articles of food. It is all very well for local authorities to prosecute (and they are very lax in even doing that) people who sell adulterated foreign stuffs; I consider that that is beginning at the wrong end. We should stop these adulterated stuffs from entering the country at all. I hope that my hon. Friend, unless he receives a more satisfactory assurance from the Government, will press his Amendment to a Division.
    SIR F. G. MILNER: I should like to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that there is an intense feeling in agricultural districts in favour of this Amendment. The Secretary of the Agricultural Union, which includes an important body of my constituents, has written, urging me to support this Amendment if it should be
    1166
    pressed to a Division. Having regard to the sympathetic answer given to the hon. Member opposite by the President of the Local Government Board, I do not think there would be any advantage in going to a Division, but I venture to say that if the Government bring in a Measure carrying out the principle of this Amendment, such a Measure will meet with no serious opposition from any quarter of this House. I think the time has come when this question ought to be grappled with, and in dealing with it vigorously the Government will have the support of the agricultural population of this country.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I do not in the least complain of the Debate which has taken place on this subject, and I thoroughly sympathise with the views of my hon. Friends who have spoken from this side of the House and from the opposite Benches: but I must be permitted to say that a great part of this argument is absolutely academical. In the Speech from the Throne there is reference to a Bill upon this subject, as one which the Government are desirous to bring in, but the hon. Members opposite who moved and supported this Amendment are not satisfied with it; they ask for some pledge of a more specific character. No pledge of a more specific character could be given by any Government in a Speech from the Throne. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment complained that the paragraph in the Speech relating to this and other Measures only promised their introduction "if time permitted." Sir, that is a qualification which is now almost common form. I believe, by the way, that I was the person who first introduced that particular way of enumerating Measures which must of necessity occupy other than premier place in the Government programme. Every Government is bound by limitations of time. No Government in the world can control the time of the House. ["Oh, oh!"] I repeat, that no Government in the world ever can or ever has controlled the time of the House. No Government in the world has been able to pass all the Measures in a Session

    1167
    which it has desired to pass. And, having regard to the evidence which the Government have given of their desire to deal with this question, it seems to me—I say it with all respect—that this Debate is simply well qualified to spend our time, and not qualified to increase the probability of our having time to spare for dealing with this subject. Sir, I can only repeat what has been said by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board. We are most desirous of dealing with this question; we have stated that desire in the most explicit terms in the Queen's Speech. Further than that neither can we go, nor could any Government which might be substituted for us. Why, therefore, we should further debate this question; why even we should divide upon it, I confess myself wholly unable to understand. This is, I think, the first time in the history of the British Parliament in which a Government has been reproached for not dealing with a question which is specifically mentioned in the Queen's Speech as one which it is intended to deal with.
    MR. WARNER: I do not think the statement of the right hon. Gentleman is in the least satisfactory, The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has told us that his Bill will not be brought in until the end of the Session——
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: I said nothing of the kind.
    MR. WARNER: At any rate, he gave a very qualified assurance, and the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury did not go any further. Clearly, the Measure, whenever it be introduced, is to be relegated to a backseat, and I hope my hon. Friend will press his Amendment to a Division, in the hope that we may secure for the Measure a more prominent position in the programme than it would now appear likely to have.
    Question put:—
    The House divided; Ayes, 66; Noes 171.

    AYES.

    Asher, Alexander

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Austin, Sir John (Yorks)

    Hayne, Rt. Hn. C. Seale-

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

    Brigg, John

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson

    Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)

    Phillipps, John Wynford

    Caldwell, James

    Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.

    Price, Robert John

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Holburn, J. G.

    Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

    Cawley, Frederick

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Randell, David

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

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

    Knox, Edmund Francis Vesey

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Souttar Robinson

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lough, Thomas

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Crean, Eugene

    MacAleese, Daniel

    Strachey, Edward

    Daly, James

    MacNeill, Jno. Gordon Swift

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Doogan, P. C.

    M'Cartan, Michael

    Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

    Ellis, Thos. Ed. (Merionethsh.)

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

    Maden, John Henry

    Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

    Mandeville, J. Francis

    Weir, James Galloway

    Finucane, John

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Milner, Sir Predk. George

    Wills, Sir William Henry

    Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

    Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonp.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Gibney, James

    Moss, Samuel

    Mr. Kearley and Mr. Lambert.

    Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

    Murnaghan, George

    NOES.

    Allen, Wm. (Newc.-under-L.)

    FitzGerald, Sir R. V. Penrose

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    More, Robert Jasper

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Flower, Ernest

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

    Forster, Henry William

    Morton, Arth. H. A. (Deptf'd)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

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

    Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

    Garfit, William

    Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

    Baird, Jno. Geo. Alexander

    Gedge, Sydney

    Murray, Col Wyndh'm (Bath)

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

    Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

    Newdigate, Francis Alex.

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald (Leeds)

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Banbury, Fredk. George

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

    Northcote, Hn. Sir H. S.

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

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

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    Beach, W. W. B. (Hants)

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Beckett, Ernest William

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Pryce-Jones, Edward

    Begg, Ferdinand Faithful

    Green, Walford D. (W'dn'sb'y)

    Purvis, Robert

    Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

    Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Pym, C. Guy

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Greville, Captain

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Bigwood, James

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Richardson, Sir T. (H'rtlep'l)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Gunter, Colonel

    Ridley, Rt. Hn Sir Matthew W.

    Bond, Edward

    Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. W.

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

    Broderick, Rt. Hon. St. J.

    Hanson, Sir Reginald

    Robertson, Herbt. (Hackney)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Round, James

    Butcher, John George

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

    Heath, James

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Carlile, William Walter

    Helder, Augustus

    Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

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

    Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

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

    Howell, William Tudor

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh

    Hutton, J. (Yorks, N. R.)

    Smith, Abel H. (Christch'rch)

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

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

    Kemp, George

    Stanley, Lord (Lancashire)

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.

    Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

    Charrington, Spencer

    Kimber, Henry

    Stephens, Henry Charles

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    King, Sir H. Seymour

    Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

    Cochrane, Hn. T. H. A. E.

    Lawrence, Sir Edw. (Cornwall)

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Lawson John Grant (Yorks.)

    Strauss, Arthur

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Sutherland, Sir Thomas

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Colomb, Sir John C. Ready

    Llewelyn, Sir D-. (Swansea)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Gl'sgw.)

    Long, Rt. Hn. W. (L'pool)

    Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Lones, Hy. Yarde Buller

    Wanklyn, James Leslie

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I. Wight)

    Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lanc. S. W.)

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Wentworth, B. C. Vernon-

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)

    Dane, Richard M.

    Maclean, James Mackenzie

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Davenport, W. Bromley-

    M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

    M'Calmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    M'Iver, Sir Lewis

    Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh N.)

    Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

    Malcolm, Ian

    Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Maple, Sir John Blundell

    Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Milbank, Powlett Chas. John

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

    Milton, Viscount

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Sir William Walrond and

    Fison, Frederick William

    Monk, Charles James

    Mr. Anstruther.

    Main Question again proposed.

    HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS OF SCOTLAND.
    DR. CLARK: In moving the Amendment which stands in my name, on the subject of the condition of the crofters, cottars and small tenants in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, I will at this late horn endeavour to deal with the matter very briefly. While it is the case in Scotland generally that increase of population has been accompanied by increase of wealth, and of the standard of comfort, it is unfortunately the fact that in the Western Highlands and Islands the reverse is the case; our population in the crofter counties has decreased; our wealth, which is principally agricultural, has also decreased, and our standard of comfort, if it has not decreased, has, at any rate, remained stationary. The condition of things is becoming worse and worse every year, and it is now far worse than in many parts of Ireland. There is no district in Ireland or county in Ireland where the poor rate is equal to what we have in the North of Scotland. Take the most northerly county of Scotland, Sutherland. The average poor rate paid in Scotland is 4s. 4d. in the £. That would be a big sum, even in a congested Irish parish; but in special parishes it is even more than that, going up to 9s. 6d. and 11s., and the average being 4s. 4¾d. It is much the same in my own county, Caithness, the largest figure being 7s., and the average 4s. 9d. Perhaps the Lord Advocate will tell me that this is due to agricultural depression. Well, the Lord Advocate knows something of the county in which he was born—I think it is a Highland county—Perth; he will find that in the first dozen parishes he looks at, the poor rate is at most 3d. or 4d. Now, what is the cause of this enormous increase in the northernmost counties? The cause is that you have the land held by a few persons. Now, Sir, this matter has been discussed on many occasions, and the facts are admitted; the difficulty is now how to remedy the grievance. We have been told by this Government, and previous Governments, that there is not land in Scotland to support the people,
    1172
    and they have offered us money to send the people away from Scotland to Manitoba and British Columbia. But, then, the last Royal Commission, after going over the country, unanimously reported that there were about 1,780,000 acres of land which they recommended should be given to the poor people; and a Bill was brought in by the late Liberal Government for the purpose of getting this land distributed amongst the people. That Bill was unfortunately killed, because that Government was killed. Now you have appointed a Congested Districts Board to aid in various ways to raise the standard of comfort among the poor, but there is no power by which you can acquire the land and distribute these 2,000,000 acres, which the Commission unanimously recommended should be given over to the people. I hope we may have an assurance from the Government that they intend to do something to prevent these people from being entirely wiped out. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
    *MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg, Sir, to second the Amendment, and, with the permission of the House, I should like to quote a few figures, to show how urgent is this matter, in view of the steady depopulation of the Highland counties. Argyllshire in 1831 had a population of 100,973; in 1891 it had fallen to 74,998. Inverness in 1841 had a population of 97,799; in 1891 it had fallen to 89,847. Ross and Cromarty in 1851 had a population of 82,707; in 1891 it had fallen to 78,727. Sutherland in 1851 had a population of 25,793; in 1891 it had fallen to 21,896. Caithness in 1861 had a population of 41,111; in 1891 it had fallen to 37,177. I am surprised that the Government do not appreciate the importance, from a national point of view, of this steady depopulation of the Highland counties of Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House knows the Highlands, and he knows how they are being depopulated. To-day you cannot get men to fill your Highland regiments, and I think this is a very serious matter, and one that should have the best consideration of the Government, especially a Government that wishes to increase our Army. Although it is three years

    1173
    since the Commission reported that there were nearly 2,000,000 acres of land which might be cultivated to profit, the situation remains unchanged; not one acre of that land has been made available. The Deer Forest Commission Report showed that there were, in the five Northern counties, no less than 56,739 acres of old arable land now out of cultivation, the figures being:—Argyllshire, 23,116 acres; Inverness, 20,779 acres; Ross and Cromarty, 5,515 acres; Sutherland, 4,296 acres; Caithness, 3,003 acres. The late Government brought in a Bill to give compulsory powers to take land, but, as my hon. Friend has said, a change of Government killed the Bill, The result is that no advance whatever has been made, and matters are going from bad to worse. When Sir George Trevelyan brought in his Bill to deal with 500,000 acres of these lands the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, who then sat on this side, expressed regret that that Bill did not meet the wants of the small crofters and cottars. Now that the right hon. Gentleman is himself in power, and has the opportunity, I hope he will bring in a Bill to give effect to the generous proposals he made then. Now, Sir, this Amendment refers generally to "questions affecting the interests of the people in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland"; and, besides the land question, there are various other questions which I think would be covered by the Amendment. There is one that I should like to enter into—I mean the trawling question; but I find there is a Bill already before the House dealing with that subject, and I presume that would debar me from discussing that matter now. Then there is the question of small tenants holding under lease. Unfortunately, these small tenants were not included in the Crofters Act of 1886, and those who hold under lease live in fear and trembling because, when their lease expires, they are at the mercy of their landlords. You will find two crofters, neighbours; one has his rent reduced fifty per cent. by the Crofters Commission; the other, who does not hold his land in the same way, but under lease, can get no reduction whatever That is a state of things which I think ought not to exist, and the Government
    1174
    should take some steps to remove these anomalies. Then, Sir, there is the question of piers and harbours.
    *MR. SPEAKER: I do not think the matters to which the hon. Member is referring come within the scope of this Amendment.
    *MR. WEIR: I should not have ventured to travel outside the particular subject of the condition of the crofters but for the general words in the Amendment to which I have referred. But, Sir, the hour is advanced, and I do not desire to detain the House. I trust the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, who knows the Highlands so well, who, when he was in Opposition, evinced so strong an affection for the Highland people, and who claims to be a member of a Highland clan, will give a pledge tonight that something will be done in this matter during the present Session.
    Amendment proposed at the end of the Question, to add the words,—
    "And we humbly express our regret that no reference is made in Your Majesty's Speech to questions specially affecting the interests of the people in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland; and that, although the Commission appointed by Your Majesty in 1892 to inquire into the land question in those districts has reported that nearly 2,000,000 acres of land now occupied as deer forests, grouse moors, and grazing tracts 'might be cultivated to profit, or otherwise advantageously occupied by crofters and small tenants,' there is no indication in Your Majesty's Speech that arrangements will be made for acquiring some portion of this land, so that the condition of the crofters, cottars, and small tenants may be improved."—(Dr. Clark.)
    Question proposed, "that those words be there added":
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I would remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that last year a Bill was introduced by the Government, and passed into law, which gave a large sum of public money for the purpose of dealing with the very problems that have been brought before the House to-night. Those problems are being dealt with through the machinery then set up by Parliament. Under these circumstances it seems to

    1175
    me little short of an abuse of the custom of raising questions on the Address to complain that the Government do not now bring in another Bill, a new Bill, before we have had even the opportunity of testing the results which we expect to derive from the Measure passed last Session. Sir, I hope the House will now consent, not merely to bring the Debate on this particular Amendment to a close, but the whole Debate on the Address. I am sure the general opinion is that we have now, for a sufficient number of days, gone through the preliminaries of the Session, and that it is really time to allow the House to proceed to the important, practical, substantive work of the Session. Of course, I cannot prevent the hon. Gentleman dividing if he desires, but I hope the Debate will not proceed further, and that other gentlemen who have Amendments down will defer to the general feeling of the House, and consent to withdraw them, so that we may to-night conclude the Debate on the Address.
    MR. CALDWELL: I wish to point out that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House is hardly putting the case fairly when he states that the Act which was passed last Session dealt with the subject-matter of this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that what the Act of last Session did was to deal with
    distress. But the object of this Amendment is not to give a dole out of the Treasury to the people; it is to give more land to the people, so that they should be able to maintain themselves, and require no dole whatever. Then, may I also point out this to the First Lord, that the dole of last Session was given purely out of Scottish money; and you, a Unionist Government, which deals with the United Kingdom as one whole, can find Imperial money for the relief of distress in Ireland.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: We gave £20,000 a year out of Imperial funds.
    MR. CALDWELL: And how much out of Scottish capital? I am only pointing out that this is a kind of distress which we in Scotland are subscribing most liberally to cope with; but it is not a question of giving doles, either out of Scottish funds or out of the Imperial Treasury. It is a question of giving the people more land in accordance with the unanimous recommendations of the Royal Commission, so that they will be able to improve their position, and not require to come to Parliament at all.
    Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 50; Noes 171.

    AYES.

    Asher, Alexander

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Brigg, John

    Healy, Tim. M. (N. Louth)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson

    Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

    Caldwell, James

    Holburn, J. G.

    Phillips, John Wynford

    Cawley, Frederick

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Price, Robert John

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Kilbride, Denis

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Crean, Eugene

    Knox, Edmund Francis Vesey

    Souttar, Robinson

    Daly, James

    Lambert, George

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Davitt, Michael

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Lough, Thomas

    Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

    Ellis, Thos. Ed. (Merionethsh.)

    MacAleese, Daniel

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Finucane, John

    M'Cartan, Michael

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

    Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

    Maden, John Henry

    Gibney, James

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Moss, Samuel

    Dr. Clark and Mr. Weir.

    Hayne, Rt. Hn. C. Seale-

    Murnaghan, George

    NOES.

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

    Fison, Frederick William

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

    FitzGerald, Sir R. U. Penrose

    More, Robert Jasper

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Ascroft, Robert

    Flower, Ernest

    Morton, Arth. H. A. (Deptf'd.)

    Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

    Forster, Henry William

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

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

    Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

    Bagot, Capt. J. Fitzroy

    Garfit, William

    Murray, Col Wyndh'm (Bath)

    Baird, Jno. Geo. Alexander

    Gedge, Sydney

    Newdigate, Francis Alex.

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

    Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald (Leeds)

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Banbury, Fredk. George

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Northcote, Hn. Sir H. S.

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Paulton, James Mellor

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

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    Beach, W. W. B. (Hants)

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Beckett, Ernest William

    Green, Walford D. (W'dn'sb'y)

    Pryce-Jones, Edward

    Begg, Ferdinand Faithful

    Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

    Purvis, Robert

    Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

    Greville, Captain

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlpl.)

    Bigwood, James

    Gunter, Colonel

    Ridley, Rt. Hn Sir Matthew W.

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. W.

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

    Bond, Edward

    Hanson, Sir Reginald

    Robertson, Herbt. (Hackney)

    Broderick, Rt. Hon. St. J.

    Hardy, Laurence

    Round, James

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Heath, James

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

    Helder, Augustus

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Carlile, William Walter

    Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

    Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

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

    Howell, William Tudor

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

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

    Hutton, J. (Yorks, N. R.)

    Smith, Abel H. (Christch'rch)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

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

    Kemp, George

    Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.

    Stephens, Henry Charles

    Charrington, Spencer

    Kimber, Henry

    Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    King, Sir H. Seymour

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jno. M.

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

    Lawrence, Sir Edw. (Cornwall)

    Sunderland, Sir Thomas

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Taylor, Francis

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Colomb, Sir John C. Ready

    Llewelyn, Sir D-. (Swansea)

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Gl'sgw.)

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (L'pool)

    Wanklyn, James Leslie

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Lopes, Hy. Yarde Buller

    Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

    Curzon, Rt Hn G. N. (Lanc. S. W.)

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I. Wight)

    Dane, Richard M.

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Wentworth, B. C. Vernon-

    Davenport, W. Bromley-

    Maclean, James Mackenzie

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

    M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

    M'Calmont, H. L. B. (C'mbs.)

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    M'Iver, Sir Lewis

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Malcolm, Ian

    Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh N.)

    Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

    Maple, Sir John Blundell

    Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Milbank, Powlett Chas. John

    Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Milner, Sir Frederick George

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Finch, George H.

    Milton, Viscount

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Sir William Walrond and

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Monk, Charles James

    Mr. Anstruther.

    Main Question put, and agreed to.

    Main Question again proposed,—

    LAND TRANSFER ACT.
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGE:, who had on the Paper the following Amendment to the Address:—
    "And we humbly express to Your Majesty our regret that the pledge given to the House on the 4th August last by Your Majesty's Government that no step should be taken, and
    1178
    their assurance that no notice could be served before the 1st January, 1898, towards putting the provisions of the Land Transfer Act in force, have been diregarded, and that in contravention thereof a notice was given by Your Majesty's Privy Council on the 26th November last to the London County Council, whereby the express purpose for which that pledge was asked and accepted by the House has been defeated."
    said: I think the matter that I intended to bring forward by my Amendment is

    1179
    really a very important one, but after the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, I feel that I ought to give way, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

    CONFISCATION OF LANDS BY THE GOVERNMENT OF CAPE COLONY.
    MR. C. P. SCOTT, who had on the Paper the following Amendment to the Address:—
    "But we humbly represent to Your Majesty that this House regrets that the consent of Her Majesty's Government should have been given to the confiscation by the Government of Cape Colony of lands reserved to certain sections of the Bechuana people, thereby depriving them of their means of subsistence, and humbly prays Your Majesty to take such steps as may be most effective to undo this wrong, and put an end to the indenturing of the men, women, and children removed from these lands under conditions amounting to temporary slavery,"
    said: I also, after what the right hon. Gentleman has said, have no objection to withdrawing my Amendment. The subject with which it deals I hope to find an opportunity of raising on the Estimates.
    *MR. CLANCY, who had on the Paper the following Amendment to the Address—
    "And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that the frauds which have been recently proved to have been perpetrated in connection with the revision of the list of voters for the St. Stephen's Green Division of the City of Dublin constitute a gross and scandalous violation of the spirit and letter of the Law, and indicate the existence of a serious conspiracy against the just representation of the people in this House, and that, in view of the fact that there is good reason to believe that a similar system of fraud has been carried out, and a similar conspiracy exists for the same object in two other contiguous constituencies, it is the imperative duty of the Government, not only to vindicate the Law by bringing the guilty parties to justice, but by taking such other administrative and legislative steps as may be necessary to prevent the recurrence of those or similar crimes,"
    said: I do not feel at liberty to accede to the request of the right hon. Gentleman,
    1180
    and I think I must say something on the Amendment which stands in my name.
    *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is aware that his Amendment is out of Order, I do not say that that debars him from addressing the House on the Main Question, but the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member is out of order.
    *MR. CLANCY: I would not venture to address the House, especially as you, Sir, tell me that my Amendment is out of order, except that I have in my mind that this very evening you have allowed the hon. Member for South Monaghan to move an Amendment, to the Address under precisely similar circumstances. A Bill dealing with the subject of the Amendment had actually been introduced and read a first time.
    *MR. SPEAKER: If so, it entirely escaped my notice. Upon what day was that Bill set down in the Order Book?
    *MR. CLANCY: I am not quite sure what the date was, but the Bill was actually circulated to Members this morning, and I presume every Member has read it.
    *MR. SPEAKER: I find that the title of the Bill is one that would give me no guidance; it is The Poor Law Settlement (Scotland) Bill. That certainly did not indicate to me that the Bill had any relation to the subject-matter of the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Monaghan. If I had known that it had, I should certainly have ruled his Amendment out of Order. But whether I was right or wrong in that matter, I hope the hon. Member will take my ruling now.
    *MR. CLANCY: May I put my point in one sentence? The memorandum prefixed to the Bill actually stated that the object was to regulate the law relating to the deportation of paupers from Scotland.
    *MR. SPEAKER: I do not doubt that that is so, but I am only pointing out that the title of the Bill did not even put

    1181
    me on inquiry. It is not my practice to read every Bill as soon as it is printed. However, I have ruled that the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Dublin is out of Order.
    *MR. CLANCY: I bow, Sir, to your ruling, and I shall not discuss the Question raised by my Amendment. But, Sir, I propose to make a statement, and it will be only a short statement, in speaking to the Main Question which I understand is now before the House. I desire to refer to the action of the Government in filling up——
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I move that the Question be now put.
    *MR. SPEAKER: I understand that the hon. Member only wishes to make a short statement.
    *MR. CLANCY: Certainly, Sir; I stated that, and I will keep my word. I will only make a short statement, but it will be a very plain one, indeed, after the Motion just made by the right hon. Gentleman. In September last Mr. Justice Warren, the judge of the Probate Court in Dublin, died. According to the Judicature Act, the vacancy thus created ought to have been filled up forthwith. In England, about the same time, two judicial vacancies occurred, and they were filled up immediately. Strange to say, although a whole month or six weeks elapsed between the time when the vacancy occurred and the commencement of the legal year in Dublin, there was no appointment made during that period, and no appointment was made for two months afterwards. The late Solicitor General in the Irish Government was kept dangling between earth and heaven in the Library of the Four Courts between the date of Judge Warren's death and the 24th December. Those are very suggestive dates, because by the 24th December it is obvious that the election that would take place in the St. Stephen's Green Division could not take place on the Register of 1897. What I charge now—and I put it very plainly—is this: that the Government delayed the
    1182
    appointment of Mr. Justice Kenny with the express purpose that they might not have an election on the old Register; and I say that because of the facts that I am aware of, and also because of the answer given the other day by the right hon. Gentleman himself, when he was asked what the reason was why the vacancy was not filled up sooner. Sir, it would be impossible to imagine that the right hon. Gentleman, if he had any answer to give, would not have given it at once. He was not able to give any reason whatever. I charge, and I charge it plainly, that the Government knew that they would be beaten on the Register of 1897, and that they deliberately delayed the appointment of Mr. Justice Kenny for the purpose of securing that the election should take place on the Register for 1898. I call that a prostitution of executive power. I say it was an exercise of power for base Party political ends, and that it is entirely unworthy of any Government, no matter what Party might be in power. But, Sir, there is a deeper significance to be attached to this matter, and that is this: we know now, as a matter of fact, that the Register in the St. Stephen's Green Division was of a very curiously constituted character for the year 1898, and I say here, very plainly, that the Government knew how that Register was constituted, and, for that reason amongst others, deliberately delayed this appointment. Sir, I said that I was only going to make a short speech; I could make a longer one; but I will keep my word, and I will conclude by saying that, in my opinion, the action of the Government in this matter is a scandal; that it is calculated to give a bad example to all Ireland; and that it is no wonder that, in the face of such procedure, the people of Ireland spit at your law and despise your Administration.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I do not intend to prolong the Debate, but I will just say this. The Government now know the facts concerning this abuse of the Executive power; they have heard the charge that has been publicly made in Parliament; and I say they are bound

    1183
    not to let the matter rest there. They know that the law has been violated, and we demand its vindication. Matters of considerably minor importance as compared with this have before now occupied Select Committees of this House. I remember an occasion when, at Leicester, two bye-elections had taken place at the game time, and Lord James, who was then a Member of this House, moved for a Select Committee on the action of the Sheriff in not holding two separate elections. That was the case of an English borough, and it was thought to be a sufficient matter to be sent to a Select Committee. I will not detain the House now, but I do think we are entitled to be assured by the Government that either by a prosecution or by an inquiry before a Select Committee of this House this foul and unpleasant matter should have some ventilation.
    Resolved—
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as followeth—
    "Most Gracious Sovereign,
    "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."

  QUESTIONS.

    WEST AFRICA: ACTION OF THE FRENCH IN LAGOS.
    SIR C. DILKE: As there is no business before the House, may I, with the leave of the House, ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies whether he has any confirmation of the very grave news from West Africa, to the effect that a British force has been fallen upon by a French force in the Hinterland of Lagos?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I can read to the House the telegrams I have received, but I must leave it to the House to appreciate their
    1184
    importance. I have received to-day one telegram from the Governor of Lagos. It is as follows—
    "Borea"—
    that is a place in the Hinterland of Lagos—
    "occupied by Hausa guard on Feb. 6th. On 9th Feb., 30 Senegalese, probably from Niki, arrived at Borea, instructed to occupy. Ordered non-commissioned officers to haul down British flag. Demand refused. Foreign power retired. Camped three miles from town."
    I have also received, at half-past five this evening, the following telegram from the Acting-Governor of the Gold Coast; it contains copy of telegram from Major Northcote, who is in the Hinterland of the Gold Coast—
    "Regret to inform you French have established posts at Wae, consisting of subaltern officer and about 30 native soldiers. Codrillet"
    the lieutenant, I believe, or captain in command—
    "accompanied by a captain and lieutenant and 64 native soldiers, arrived Nassa on Feb. 1st. I had established post at Nassa, and dispatched Fortescue with letter protesting and suggesting conference on Feb. 2nd. In spite of protest he advanced. After protest in usual manner between both parties Codrillet left for Leo to-day, leaving behind above-mentioned post uncontested."
    DR. TANNER: Vive la France!
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
  In pursuance of Standing Order No. 1, "Sittings of the House,"—I hereby nominate—
  Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. John Edward Ellis, The Right Honble. Charles Beilby Stuart-Wortley, Mr. John Grant Lawson, and Mr. Edmond Robert Wodehouse, to act during this Session as temporary Chairmen of Committees when requested by the Chairman of Ways find Means.
  House adjourned at a quarter past One of the clock.