Sitting of 4 August 1885

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Registration Appeals (Ireland)* [259].
Second Reading—Land Purchase (Ireland) [249].
Committee—Report—Federal Council of Australasia [165]; Secretary for Scotland [212]; Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Amendment [250–258].
Considered as amended—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London)* [233]; East India (Army Pensions Deficiency)* [225].
Considered an amended—Re-eomm.—Committee—Report—Considered as amended.—Third Reading—Labourers (Ireland) (No. 2) [68], and passed.
Third Reading—Earldom of Mar Restitution* [256]; Public Works Loans* [251], and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL (by Order).

    CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
    Lords' Amendments considered.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he had an Amendment to move which he did not believe would be opposed.
    Amendment proposed,
    In Clause 36a, leave out from "person," in the first line of the Clause, to the end of the Clause, in order to insert the following words, "except with the consent of the Corporation to erect or build, or to begin to erect or build, any new building abutting upon any new street or part of a new street unless the Corporation shall have previously approved of the level and available width of such now street or part of a new street, nor until the carriage-way and footway of such new street or part of a new street shall have been formed to such a level and of such a width and constructed and sewered to the satisfaction of the Corporation, in accordance with section one hundred and fifty of 'The Public Health Act, 1875;' and any person offending against this enactment shall be liable for each offence to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds."—(Mr. Arthur Arnold.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Sir ARTHUR OTWAY)said, he had no objection to the Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Lords' Amendments, as amended, agreed to.

  RAMSDEN ESTATE BILL [Lords] (by Order).

    THIRD HEADING DEFERRED.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESsaid, he wished to make an appeal to his hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), who had given Notice of his intention to move the re-committal of the Bill with respect to Clause 5, to state his objections to the clause at once, rather than defer the third reading until another day. He made the appeal on account of the short time now left for the disposal of Private Bills. He was quite prepared to answer any objection his hon. Friend might make.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he should be most happy to adopt the suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means; and he would at once, in a very few words, explain the reasons which had induced him to place an Amendment on the Paper. It would be in the recollection of hon. Members that last year the House, on his Motion, unanimously adopted a Standing Order with regard to Estate Bills, which provided that the Committee should specially report to the House any case in which a Bill contained a provision extending the term or area of land in settlement. It further provided that such Report should be printed and circulated with the Votes. The Committee on the Ramsden Estate Bill had, in pursuance of that Standing Order, made a Report to the House, and he was obliged to call attention for a moment to the nature of that Report, because the Committee over which his right hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means had presided had done their best in the interests of the passing of the Bill to attenuate the requirements of the Standing Order. Under a Private Act of 1867, the Trustees of the Ramsden Settled Estates obtained power to expend £50,000 in the purchase of hereditaments in the neighbourhood of the family estates at Byram in Yorkshire. It was proposed by the Bill now before the House to vary that power of settlement, and to ask the sanction of the House to expend the sum I of £50,000—the same sum authorized

    1035
    in 1867 to be expended in land at Byram—upon property in the neighbourhood of the town of Huddersfield. Although his right hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means, in reporting on the Bill, called attention to that fact, he suggested that although, under the Standing Order, a Report had been rendered necessary, still there would not be, under the provisions of the Bill, any real extension of the area of settled land, because the price of land was higher in the neighbourhood of Huddersfield than it was in the neighbourhood of Byram; and, therefore, £50,000 expended in the neighbourhood of Huddersfield would purchase less land than at Byram, and consequently there would be no extension of the area of settled land. He thought he could dispose of that contention by simply pointing out that the Chairman of Ways and Means had felt it his duty, and the House was certainly indebted to him for it, to report the Bill to the House, as coming within the Standing Order. The plain matter of fact was this—that the House of Commons was asked, at that moment, to sanction the expenditure of a sum of £50,000 in the purchase of property to be added to the settled land of the Ramsden estates—that was to say, that land, now free land, in the neighbourhood of the town of Huddersfield was to be purchased in order to be converted into settled land. He was glad that he had nothing of a personal character to say in regard to the Bill, except that he had every reason to believe that his hon. Friend the Member for the Eastern Division of the West Hiding of Yorkshire (Sir John Ramsden), to whom the Bill specially referred, was an excellent landlord, as he was certainly a valuable Member of Parliament. But if there was any case in which the House would be disposed to object to the settlement of land, it was in the neighbourhood of Huddersfield, because there was no town in the Kingdom more close in regard to settled land than that borough. He believed that the Ramsden estate extended over the whole, or practically the whole, of that town. In such a state of things, he did not think it was desirable, in the interests of the people of this country generally, that the system should be extended, and he hoped that every hon. Member who was interested in land reform would oppose the Bill.
    MR. WARTONasked why the system of settling land should not be extended?
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, his reason for objecting to the extension of the system was that it was opposed to the interests of the people; and it was for that reason that he proposed to ask the House to consent to the re-committal of the Bill, in order that Clause 5 might be struck out. In doing so, he could not refrain from renewing the expression of his gratitude to the House for having passed the Standing Order, nor could he refrain from reminding the House that this was probably the first occasion in the history of Parliament in which the practice of settling land had been brought up at the Bar of the House of Commons by the responsible officials of the House as a practice which was contrary to the public interests. He was delighted that that occasion should have occurred; and, as he had already said, he hoped that all those who took any interest in land reform, in regard to which this question of settlement formed the key-stone, would give him their support in resisting the provision of the present Bill, and in asking the House to re-commit the measure in order that Clause 5 might be struck out.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be re-committed in respect to Clause 5."—(Mr. Arthur Arnold.)
    THE CHAIRMAN OR COMMITTEES THE CHAIRMAN OR COMMITTEES rose to address the House, when——
    MR. SPEAKERinterposed. He said that the action taken by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) was in the nature of opposition, and therefore the Bill must stand over until tomorrow.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, his right hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means had appealed to him to go on.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has made a hostile Motion to the Bill, and it is therefore necessary that the discussion should stand over until tomorrow.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD: I certainly cannot withdraw the Motion.
    Ordered, That the Bill be read the third time To-morrow.

QUESTIONS.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—LONDON BOARD SCHOOLS—ANNUAL COST PER SCHOLAR.
  LORD ALGERNON PERCYasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, What has been the cost per scholar in the London Board Schools during the past three years, and what is the estimated cost per scholar for the coming financial year?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. E. STANHOPE): Sir, the Clerk of the London School Board sends me the following figures in reply to my noble Friend's Question:—The expenditure per scholar in average attendance in the London Board Schools was, for the year ending August 13, 1882, £2 16 s. 5¼d.;for 1883, £2 15 s. 3¾d.; for 1884, £2 14s. 6d. But the estimated expenditure for the year ending March 25, 1885, is £2 17 s. 1d., and for that ending March 25, 1886, £3 1s. 1d.; showing an increase in the three years of 4s. 7¾d. per scholar. These figures corroborate the statement made by my noble Friend in the recent debate on the Education Estimates.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—LURGAN UNION—DR. JOHN SCOTT.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that a Doctor Scott acts as elected guardian of Lurgan Union, and also dispensary doctor for a district within the Union; and, whether such conduct is regular; and, if not, will he have it remedied?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): I think there must be some misunderstanding in this matter. It appears there is a Doctor John Scott who is an elected Guardian of this Union, and a Doctor Francis Scott, who is medical officer of one of the dispensing districts of the Union. The former is not acting as a medical officer in the Union.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—PETTY SESSIONS CLERK, MULLAGHROE PETTY SESSIONS DISTRICT, CO. SLIGO.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,
  1038
  With reference to a memorial addressed to his predecessor, pointing out the great inconvenience caused to the inhabitants of the Mullaghroe (county Sligo) Petty Sessions District by the fact that the petty sessions clerk lives sixteen miles away from some parts of the district, at Boyle, in another county, whether the Government are aware that the official in question holds the clerkships of five petty sessions districts; and, whether, in compliance with the desire conveyed in the memorial, they will cause to be appointed to the clerkship of Mullaghroe a person resident in the district?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): The subject of this Memorial has been very carefully considered, and the Government are satisfied that no sufficient cause has been shown for making any change at present in the existing arrangement.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—PROTECTION POST AT BUNDUFF, CO. LEITRIM.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the police protection post at Bunduff, county Sligo, is in the house of an evicted tenant, and what rent is paid by the Government for the house to the landlord, Captain Barton; whether there are five constabulary barracks within a radius of three miles from this protection post; and, whether the district is quite orderly and entirely free from crime; and, if so, whether the post will be discontinued?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): Hitherto for some time past there has been a temporary protection post at Bunduff—which is in the county of Leitrim, and not Sligo—in a house belonging to Captain Barton, for which no rent has been paid. It has now, however, been decided to re-arrange the police districts of the locality, and to make Bunduff an ordiuary permanent station. There are only two other stations within a radius of three miles, and one of these is in the next county. The force at the protection post has not been charged to the locality.

  THE IRISH ADMINISTRATION—MR. E. G. JENKINSON.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether there is any intention on the

  1039
  part of the Government to appoint Mr. E. G. Jenkinson to the post of Assistant Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, or in any way to continue, or renew, the connection of that official with the administration of Ireland?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): Mr. Jenkinson still holds the post to which the hon. Member asks if it is the intention of the Government to appoint him. I am not in a position to say what his tenure of the office will be; but it is distinctly temporary.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND)—THE CLERK TO THE BANGOR TOWN COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Did the Local Government Board write to the Bangor Town Commissioners, about the beginning of June last, to take into consideration the advisability of removing the town clerk; did the Commissioners, in consequence, reply that the clerk had been called upon to resign; has the same person been reinstated as clerk; and, can he be retained in face of the recent disclosures concerning him made by several of the Commissioners before Mr. Justice O'Brien at the Belfast Assizes?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): It appears that, at the instance of the Local Government Board, the Bangor Town Commissioners recently called on their clerk to resign, and that subsequently they declined to accept his resignation. I am informed that they took this course in consequence of the receipt of a Memorial signed by the principal ratepayers asking them to retain the clerk. The Local Government Board have no power to appoint or remove a Town Clerk.

  MARRIAGE LAW—ATTENDANCE OF REGISTRARS.
  MR. ATKINSONasked Mr. Attorney General, If he will bring in a Bill to dispense with the personal attendance of Registrars at marriages celebrated in places of public worship licensed for the due solemnization of such marriages, care being taken to provide, under penalties, for their proper registration?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): Sir, according to
  1040
  the existing law the personal attendance of the Registrar makes the registration sufficient evidence of the contract of marriage, assuming the requirements of the Acts have been observed. It is most important that proper evidence of marriages should be preserved in as simple a form as possible; but, although I cannot pledge myself to bring in a Bill, I am quite willing to consult the proper authorities as to whether, assuming a valid registration can be secured without the presence of the Registrar, his attendance might be dispensed with.

  EGYPT (THE SOUDAN)—THE LATE EXPEDITION UNDER HICKS PASHA —CASE OF THE LATE E. B. EVANS, INTERPRETER.
  MR. CALLAN (for Mr. MARUM)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to the case of the late Edward Baldwin Evans, Interpreter to the Expedition under Hicks Pasha, and who was killed therein together with that General officer; whether, having lived for many years in Alexandria, Cairo, and Hedjaz, and carried Despatches from the Consul there to Suez, he (E. B. Evans) found the Indian Contingent on its way to the front, and was engaged in the Intelligence Department with the honorary rank of Captain and pay at the rate of £400 per annum; that he was at Tel-el-Kebir, and afterwards was employed as Interpreter for Mr. Broadly in the Egyptian State Trials; that he received his Commission from the Khedive; that, after the Battle of Marabia, his rank was raised to that of Major with pay of £500; that for his valuable services he was promised by the Egyptian Government a gratuity of six months' pay; whether, notwithstanding no such gratuity has been paid to his sisters, who were dependent on him for support, and who are now in straitened circumstances, there is still outstanding an arrear of two months' pay that accrued due before the fate of the Expedition; and, whether the Government will use its influence to see right done?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BOURKE): There is no information in the Foreign Office regarding this case; but inquiry will be made as to what are the facts.

  ARMY—SMALL ARM AMMUNITION— THE BOXER CARTRIDGE.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that the ammunition for the Martini-Henry rifle was not adopted until upwards of a year after General Boxer had retired from the Service, and that he is in no way responsible or to blame for any defects in the construction of the cartridge which may have been the cause of failure with respect to strength-resistance to wet and damp, and easy extraction under severe service conditions; and, whether it is a fact that the cartridge for the Snider rifle, for the construction of which General Boxer is wholly responsible, has successfully stood the unerring test of nearly twenty years' experience, in peace and in war, and that, too, under conditions as unfavourable to its proper action as those under which failures are reported to have occurred with the Martini-Henry ammunition?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The facts as to the introduction of the Martini-Henry rifle cartridge are, substantially, as stated by the hon. Member. As regards comparison between the Martini-Henry and the Snider cartridge, I must decline to be led into any discussion as to their respective merits.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—TAMPERING WITH LETTERS.
  MR. CALLAN (for Mr. MARUM)asked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been directed to an alleged irregularity in the transit, through the postal officials, of two letters posted in Dublin on the 10th of June last, and addressed to John Lowry, Esq., Post Office, Ballybrophy, in the Queen's County, Ireland, wherein those letters have been tampered with, and that the writer of the letters in question has proposed to the postal authorities in Dublin to prove on oath the alleged tampering with the documents furnished to them; and, whether he will cause an inquiry to be instituted under which the writer may be enabled to make good the above charge?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Lord JOHN MAXNERS): My attention has been called to the case alluded to
  1042
  by the hon. Member. Very careful inquiry has already been made, and I see no reason whatever for coming to any other conclusion than that already stated to Mr. Lowry—namely, that the letters were not tampered with while in the hands of the Post Office. I, therefore, see no reason to hold the inquiry suggested.

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS—THE CHARITY COMMISSIONERS—TONBRIDGE SCHOOL.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether the Charity Commissioners, in their draft scheme for Tonbridge School, proposed that a second or middle school should be established in or near the town of Tonbridge; whether the Skinners' Company provided an endowment fund of £20,000 for the purpose of establishing such school; whether the Charity Commissioners, after obtaining possession of this money, insisted that the promised new school should be placed at Tunbridge Wells, a town five miles distant from Tonbridge; whether this proceeding on the part of the Charity Commissioners is in violation of their statutory powers; and, whether, pending the inquiry to be made by the Select Committee into the working of the Endowed Schools Act, the Charity Commissioners will postpone the expenditure of the said endowment fund, in order that the grave charges brought by the inhabitants of Tonbridge against the action of the Commissioners in respect to this school might be inquired into?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. E. STANHOPE): In the year 1875 the Charity Commissioners published a draft scheme for Sir Andrew Judd's School at Tonbridge, providing, among other things, for the investment of the residuary income of that endowment as a fund for the ultimate establishment of a middle school "in or near the town of Tonbridge." In the year 1878 a fresh draft scheme was published for Sir Andrew Judd's School, from which the former provision for the establishment of a middle school "in or near the town of Tonbridge" was omitted. At the same time another draft scheme was published for the application of a sum of

  1043
  £20,000, to be provided from sources independent of Sir Andrew Judd's School by the Skinner's Company, and wholly unconnected with Tonbridge, for a middle school to be maintained "in or near the parish of Tonbridge," leaving open the position of the school, at the express desire of the Skinners' Company. The scheme for the middle school in the form agreed to by the Skinners' Company having, in due course, been approved by Her Majesty, the Charity Commissioners received representations both from Tonbridge and from Tunbridge Wells, in both of which towns sites for the new school were offered. After inquiry and full consideration of the circumstances, the Charity Commissioners arrived at the conclusion that, however desirable it might be that a second or lower school should be established in the town of Tonbridge, the reasons in favour of placing the middle school at Tunbridge Wells preponderated. The approval of the site for the school was expressly reserved to the Charity Commissioners in the scheme as approved by Her Majesty, and a suitable site for the school at Tunbridge Wells has now been secured by voluntary gift from the inhabitants.

  INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND)—THE KILKEE DRAINAGE.
  THE O'GORMAN MAHONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Irish Government are aware that great damage has been and is being caused by the overflow of swamps, and the consequent flooding of agricultural and pastoral lands in the district of Kilkee, County Clare; and, whether the Government will immediately cause the Board of Works to institute a competent inquiry, with a view to ascertain the nature and extent of the damage, and to decide whether the State can aid the occupiers of the district in executing drainage operations?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir HENRY HOLLAND)said, he must ask that the Question should be postponed until Thursday. He had not yet received a communication in reference to it in answer to his inquiries.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS—USE OF NATIONAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ROOMS.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, If, in view of the coming elections, he will address a Memorandum to the managers of National Elementary Schools, especially to those in rural districts, pointing out that, in all cases where the use of the public school rooms is granted for political and other public purposes, there should be no preference given to any one political section of the inhabitants of the district?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. E. STANHOPE): Although, personally, I am of opinion that, as a rule, it is desirable in these cases that both political Parties should be treated on an equality, it is impossible to say that it is of universal application, and I cannot undertake to interfere with the discretion of the school managers in the manner suggested by the hon. Member.

  ALLOTMENTS EXTENSION ACT, 1882— LADY ISABELLA DODD'S CHARITY, ELLESBOROUGH, BUCKS.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether the Charity Commissioners prepared and circulated, in August 1884, a draft scheme relating to Lady Isabella Dodd's Charity, in Ellesborough, Bucks., which omitted provisions for allotments, and whether the Charity Commissioners have since inserted provisions for allotments therein in accordance with section fourteen of "The Allotments Extension Act, 1882;" whether the Charity Commissioners have inserted provisions for allotments, as required by section fourteen of "The Allotments Extension Act, 1882," in all schemes made by them after the passing of that Act in relation to any Charity, part of the endowment of which consisted of land (other than buildings and the appurtenances of buildings); whether, if they have omitted to insert such provisions in any such schemes, they will repair the omission by issuing amended schemes which will contain provisions for allotments according to the intention of the Act; and, whether the Charity Commissioners will

  1045
  publish a lift of the schemes made by them since the passing of the said Act in which such provisions are inserted, and a list of those which contain no such provisions?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. E. STANHOPE): To the first part of the Question of the hon. Member I have to say that the facts are correctly stated. To the second, the Charity Commissioners inform me that these provisions have in some cases been omitted, partly from inadvertence (chiefly in the case of schemes drafted previously to and established shortly after the passing of the Allotments Act, 1882), and partly because it was for some time doubted whether these provisions should not be inserted only in schemes in which provision is made for the management of the lands of the charity. They are now always inserted in such cases. To the third part, the answer is that schemes can be made only on application to the Commissioners, who have no power to act on their own motion. They authorize me to say that if application is made in any of these cases they will be quite ready to insert these provisions. For this reason, and because the Return would be costly and practically useless, I have to answer the hon. Member's fourth paragraph in the negative.

  POST OFFICE (CONTRACTS)—THE AMERICAN MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. GILESasked the Postmaster General, In what direction the extension of the American Mail Service will take place, seeing that an increase of £25,775 has been made in the Estimates; and, whether any provision has been made for despatching a Thursday's mail to America by the express steamers of the North German Lloyd from Southampton?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Lord JOHN MANNERS): The increase referred to by my hon. Friend is due mainly to the normal growth annually of the correspondence sent from this country to the United States. An increase of the correspondence does not necessarily call for an extension of the American mail service; and I may state that, until the whole question has been fully considered, it is not intended to make any provision, beyond that which now exists in the shape of ship letter mails,
  1046
  for sending the Thursday's mails to America by the steamers of the North German Lloyd from Southampton.

  WESTERN" PACIFIC—NEW GUINEA— FORM OF GOVERNMENT FOR THE ENGLISH PORTION.
  VISCOUNT LYMINGTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government have decided upon the form of Government under which the English portion of New Guinea is to be administered; upon the proportion of the expense of government to be borne by the Imperial Exchequer; and upon efficient means of permanently securing the yearly contributions of the Colonial Parliaments?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Colonel STANLEY),in reply, said, he was not in a position to make any definite statement. The proceedings which had taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Colonial authorities in respect of Now Guinea had been somewhat interrupted by the change of Government. The various arrangements were not yet concluded.
  MR. BRYCE: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman be able to do so within the next few days?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE: I am afraid not.

  TRAMWAY COMPANIES (METROPOLIS) —EMPLOYES HOURS OF LABOUR.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the attention of the Government has been called to the condition of labour imposed on the London tram men; if he is aware that they are compelled to work sixteen hours a-day, including Sundays; and, whether he will grant an inquiry into the subject?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS): Yes, Sir; I have made inquiries, and I believe these men very often have to work 16 hours a-day. It seems to me enormous labour, as the House can understand, for we are ourselves working 16 hours a-day. We were so yesterday.

  THE CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT—THE SUFFOLK CONSERVATIVE ASSOCIATION.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention

  1047
  has been called to a Circular issued and signed by the Marquis of Bristol as Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Stowmarket Division of the Suffolk Conservative Association, in which Circular the following paragraph appears:—
  "As under the Corrupt Practices Act the candidate is allowed to spend only a limited sum of money upon election expenses, the Association will be put to some expense in holding meetings, publishing pamphlets, &c. with a view to assist the return of a Conservative to represent the Division in Parliament, this Association will also require funds for its own organization;"
  and, whether the expenditure by an Association "with a view to assist the return of a candidate," beyond the sum authorised by the Corrupt Practices Act, is legal within the provisions of that Act?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): Sir, it is impossible to answer the Question of the hon. Member in the terms in which it is framed. The provisions of the Corrupt Practices Act do not interfere with bonâ fide organizations or expenses bonâ fide incurred by political associations for the promotion of particular political views in any constituency without reference to the election of any particular individual. Whether or not the expenditure of an association is illegal is a question of fact, and can only be finally determined by the Election Court after the investigation of all the circumstances of the case.

  PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND)—DEDUCTIONS FROM ROAD CONTRACTORS' ACCOUNTS—MR. F. MORRIS, SECRETARY TO GRAND JURY, CO. CLARE.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Francis Morris, Secretary of the Grand Jury of the county Clare, has been for a number of years in the habit of charging road contractors a fee of 2s. 6d. each for form of tender when applying for contracts for public works, and a fee of 4s. for what he terms "accounting" on getting their half-yearly payments of account; whether he has admitted, when questioned by Mr. Anthony O'Dwyer, a cesspayer, at the Presentment Sessions held at Multown Mulbury in May last, that these charges were illegal, and ought not to
  1048
  have been made; whether he, notwithstanding, extracted the fees as usual from contractors when settling their accounts after the last assizes; and, whether any proceedings will be instituted against Morris?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): I have already explained that the Secretary of a Grand Jury is not an officer of the Government, and that, therefore, the question of charges by him is not a matter for Parliamentary interference.

  LAW AND POLICE—ILLEGAL FISHING IN KILDARE—INSANITARY HOUSES AT KILL.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the constabulary at Kill, county Kildare, have reported that Lord Mayo, and members of his family and servants, have repeatedly dragged the canal with large nets for fish, which when taken are conveyed to fish ponds in Lord Mayo's demesne in Palmerston, and whether a prosecution will be instituted; and, whether the houses in the village of Kill, on Lord Mayo's property, were two years ago condemned as unfit for human habitation by the late medical officer, Dr. Hayes; and, if so, who is responsible for the failure to enforce the law?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE),in reply, said, the police had not made any Report on this matter, nor were they aware that such a thing had taken place. He was informed that, at Kill, houses held under leases were condemned as unfit for human habitation, and the sanitary officer stated that action was duly taken in the matter.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—PROMOTION OF HEAD CONSTABLES.
  MR. BERESFORDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the giving of merely one appointment, after a period of nearly three years, is expected to satisfy the aspirations of the Head Constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary to their fair share of promotion to District Inspectorships; and, if not, will they get a proportion of vacancies which they claim as due to them without further delay?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): I recently explained that the regulated proportion of appointments of head constables to District Inspectorships has been and will be strictly kept up, and that the one appointment now about to be made is really in anticipation of what the head constables are entitled to. This concession has been made in consideration of the fact that, owing to unusual and unavoidable circumstances, 10 head constables were promoted in 1882, and that, consequently, a long time has elapsed since a promotion from that rank has taken place. Two further appointments will be given to head constables in due course.

  PARKS (METROPOLIS)—THE REGENT'S PARK—RE-ENCLOSURE OF LAND
  MR. DANIEL GRANTasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether his attention has been drawn to a statement in The Echo of Saturday last, that a portion of the land in Regent's Park, lately restored to the public, has been again enclosed; and, whether such statement is correct; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET)asked that the Question should be again put in a day or two, when he would be in a position to answer it.

  RAILWAYS (ENGLAND AND WALES)—TERMINAL CHARGES.
  MR. NORWOODasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether the attention of his Department has been directed to the decision of the Divisional Court in the case of Hall v. London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway, practically reversing the decisions for several years past of the Railway Commissioners in reference to terminal charges; and, whether, in view of the great importance of this decision to the trading community, the Government will, during the Recess, prepare a comprehensive measure dealing with the question?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): Yes, Sir; the attention of the Board of Trade has been directed to the decision of the
  1050
  Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in the case of Hall v. the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company with reference to terminal charges; but I am not at the present moment in a position to give any pledge as to what course the Government may take with regard to railway legislation. The question is one of very great importance, and will receive the earnest attention of the Board of Trade.

  TRADE AND NAVIGATION ACCOUNTS —IMPORTATION OF CATTLE, &c. FROM IRELAND.
  MR. DUCKHAMasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether he will for the future add to the Monthly Trade and Navigation Accounts a Return of the numbers of cattle, sheep, and swine received from Ireland, similar to the Return of importations of those animals from Foreign Countries; and, whether he will add a Return of the dead meat of all kinds received from Ireland?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The accounts of the cattle exports from Ireland to Great Britain are obtained by the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council for Ireland, and are published weekly in The Dublin Gazette, and also yearly in the Veterinary Report of the Privy Council Office, London. Meat exports from Ireland are not so registered, and are, therefore, only treated as part of the coasting trade of the United Kingdom, which is not registered with the same formalities as the foreign trade. The monthly trade accounts have reference only to foreign and Colonial trade, and not to trade between separate divisions of the United Kingdom; but in view of the importance of information as to trade with Ireland the question will be carefully considered, with a view of including in such accounts a supplementary statement of trade with Ireland.
  MR. NEWDEGATEasked, whether, in any future arrangement, the importation from Ireland would be kept separate from the importation of foreign and Colonial cattle?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD: I propose in future that a supplementary account dealing exclusively with. Ireland shall be kept.

  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS—RETURN OF OCCUPIERS—ENGLAND AND WALES.
  MR. WOODALLasked the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Return of Male and Female Occupiers in England and Wales, presented on the 15th of June, and ordered to be printed on the 9th of July, will be distributed among Members of the House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY): The Return has been with the printer since the order for printing was made. The proofs have been received in the Home Office this morning, and the Return will no doubt be ready for distribution in the course of a few days.

  CONSTITUTION OF THE ADMIRALTY —A FINANCE LORD.
  SIR JOHN HAY (for Lord HENRY LENNOX)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he has further considered the advisability of appointing a Finance Lord of the Board of Admiralty; whether he can explain the precise method of controlling expenditure which actually exists at the Admiralty at the present time; and, if it be true, as recently stated in evidence by the Accountant General of the Navy before the Committee now sitting on Admiralty Accounts, that there is now no permanent official at the Admiralty who is responsible for the control of the entire expenditure, but that each head of a department controls the expenditure of that Department?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): I have nothing to add to the objections I stated the other day to the appointment of a Finance Lord at the Board of Admiralty, and to them I still adhere. The method of controlling the expenditure at the Admiralty is the same as it has been for some years past. The ultimate control of the Naval Votes rests entirely with the Board of Admiralty, the Parliamentary Secretary being specially charged with this duty. The officers responsible to the Board for the expenditure out of these Votes are the heads of the spending Departments, who send in their statements of expenditure incurred to the Accountant General, who forwards their reports to the Secretary and First Lord of the Admiralty.
  1052
  I have not read the evidence of the Accountant General of the Navy before the Select Committee referred to; but he informs me that he gave the evidence with the object of making clear the different position which he, as Accountant General of the Navy, occupied to that of the Accountant General at the War Office, where that officer has authority to investigate proposed expenditure before it is incurred. At the Admiralty, the practice is to report to him the expenditure after it has been incurred. I have always assumed that the object for which the two offices were made was identical, and that as the War Office system has worked well we should endeavour, as far as possible, to assimilate to it the Admiralty system.
  MR. GRAY: Will the noble Lord be prepared to give the House any assurance that no permanent change involving additional expense will be made pending the consideration by the House of the Report of the Select Committee on Admiralty Accounts?
  THE FIRST LORD: It is competent to the hon. Member to discuss the Report of the Committee; but, in the present condition of Public Business, it would be impossible for the Government to initiate any such discussion. I cannot give the promise asked for by the hon. Member, as it will be our duty to take action upon that Report, subject to any opinion which the House may express on the Report; but if it be necessary to strengthen the financial control at the Admiralty by appointing any additional officers, of course it will be our duty to undertake this on our own responsibility.

  NAVY—ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF THE NAVY.
  SIR JOHN HAY (for Lord HENRY LENNOX)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, On what facts he based his statement to the effect that the Accountant General of the Navy is at the present time the only permanent official charged with the duty of checking and controlling the expenditure; and, whether it is intended to ask the Accountant General of the Navy (who has but recently returned from taking an important part in the Financial Control of Egypt) to undertake the absolute and entire Financial Control of the whole expenditure of the Navy?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): I made the statement in question because I believed it to be correct, and nothing has since occurred to contradict the opinion I then expressed. The Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the recent excess of expenditure has not yet been circulated; and until I have had an opportunity of reading and considering it I cannot state the nature or scope of the alterations we may make, though one of them will be the strengthening of the authority and controlling power of the Accountant General.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—INSTRUCTION OF DEAF-MUTE CHILDREN.
  MR. WOODALLasked the vice President of the Council, If he is aware that, of the large number of deaf-mute children in the United Kingdom, less than one-half are under suitable instruction; that, while State aid is given towards the education of the children of the criminal classes as well as of the general population, no Government help is afforded to the deaf and dumb; and, whether the Government will arrange for an inquiry into the subject by Royal Commission, as has been done in relation to the blind, and in accordance with what is understood to have been the intention of the late Government, as intimated in the reply of the late Vice President to the question addressed to him on the 18th of May last?
  THE VICE PEESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. E. STANHOPE): To ascertain the number of deaf-mute children not under suitable instruction is one of the objects of the inquiry which, as I stated the other day, we desired to institute. There is at present no reliable information on this point. It is true that no Government aid is at present given towards the instruction of the deaf and dumb; but I cannot say whether England stands alone among civilized countries in this respect. What the intention of the late Government may have been we have no means of knowing; but there is no trace of any resolution to extend to the deaf and dumb the inquiries of the Royal Commission on the condition of the blind. After carefully considering the matter, I am still of opinion that the inquiry already proposed affords, upon the whole,
  1054
  the means best calculated to advance the object which we all have at heart.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—LONDON SCHOOL BOARD EXPENDITURE.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Finance Committee of the London School Board, from which it appears that the current account of that Board was, at the present moment, overdrawn to the amount of £130,000, and further that, after the receipt of all the precepts due at Michaelmas next, the account would still be overdrawn about £38,000; whether he could state to the House the causes which have led to this result; and, whether Her Majesty's Government intend to take any steps to prevent the recurrence of such a breach of duty?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I have asked the London School Board to furnish me with a reply to the Question of the hon. Member, and I have received from them the following:—At the date of the Report of the Finance Committee (July 28) the current account—including cheques to be drawn on the 30th of Lily—was overdrawn to the amount of £159,941. The Board would have to borrow this amount for a short time from their balance on capital account, which on the 30th of July amounted to £230,884. The current account would not have been overdrawn but for the fact that precepts to the amount of £219,196 which were due on the 24th of June previous had not up to the 30th of July been paid by the vestries and district boards. The statement that, after the receipt of all the precepts due at Michaelmas next, the current account would still be overdrawn by about £38,000, is duo to a misapprehension. The statement should have been that on the 8th. of October next the current account would still be overdrawn to the extent of £38,000, or perhaps £40,000, supposing all the precepts due at Midsummer last to have been then paid. But at Michaelmas next precepts to the amount of £261,341 will become due, and payments will at once begin to be made to the Board. This statement appears to me to be extremely unsatisfactory. The School Board appear to be applying money which they have bor-

  1055
  rowed from the Metropolitan Board of Works for a specific purpose to balance a deficit on the current account. But the Government have no power to interfere in any way.

  EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)—THE SOUDAN—BATTLE OF ABU KLEA.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any Despatch was received from Sir Herbert Stewart, giving an account of the Battle of Abu Klea, and the conduct of the Troops subsequent to the Despatch from Abu Klea of the 13th of January; and, if there be such a Despatch, whether he will lay it upon the Table of the House?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I assume that the date in the hon. and gallant Baronet's Question is a misprint for the 18th of January, the date of the despatch referred to in my reply of yesterday. So far as I am aware there was no later despatch from Sir Herbert Stewart, who received his fatal wound early on the following day.

  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) ACT—PUBLICATION OF LISTS OF VOTERS IN NORTH ANTRIM.
  MR. SEXTONasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, in view of the facts that the list of voters required by law to be published by the 22nd ult. did not reach the clerks of unions in North Antrim until the 29th; that the lists had not been published in the Grange District (county Sligo) on the 1st inst.; that complaints of similar failures of duty on the part of officials are made from different parts of Ireland; and that the period limited by statute for lodgment of claims expires to-day, What steps will be taken to impose upon officials responsible for violation of the duty cast upon them by law the penalties they have incurred; and, as voters and claimants have been deprived of the facilities contemplated by law for inspection of the lists, whether the provision in the Irish Registration Act is to be understood as applying to the lodgment of claims to be placed upon the register, and for what period beyond the present date claims may be lodged accordingly?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): I have not been
  1056
  able to ascertain whether the dates mentioned in the Question are correct; but I am aware in some places in Ireland the lists of voters were not published till after the time appointed by the statute. In any instances of the kind that have hitherto come to the notice of the Irish Government, it has, I think, been ascertained that this has not arisen from any failure of duty on the part of the officials, but from the impossibility of having the necessary printing completed in the short time at their disposal. Under such circumstances it would be unjust to seek to enforce penalties. There is no power to extend the time for lodging claims beyond the 4th August.

  CHILI AND PERU—THE PERUVIAN BONDHOLDERS.
  MR. WILLIAMSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the proposed action of Her Majesty's Government, in concert with other Powers, referred to in the letter of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, dated the 28th July, addressed to the Chairman of the Peruvian Bondholders, has originated with Her Majesty's Government, or has been first suggested by any of these Powers; whether, in the Note of the Chilian Government of the 5th June 1884, therein referred to, that Government clearly indicated that the investigation of any claims arising from the acquisition by Chili of the Desert of Tarapaca should be, in the first instance, before the tribunals of Chili, in the form prescribed by Law; and, whether, seeing that there are several groups of Peruvian creditors who allege that they have claims against the guano deposits, and who have not united in submitting these claims to the Government of Chili since the 5th June 1884, nor have taken any steps to have the alleged hypothecation of territory, or of guano deposits thereon, investigated by the only competent tribunals, namely, those of Chili, Her Majesty's Government will consider whether it is not premature, at present, to press the alleged claims of anyone section of these creditors, in view of our friendly relations with the Chilian Government?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BOURKE): I cannot reply at such short notice to the various points raised by the hon. Member, some of which involve questions of law and

  1057
  matters of opinion. But it may suffice to state that Her Majesty's Government have united with the other Governments interested in a representation to the Chilian Government, urging them to carry out their promise to enter into an equitable understanding with the creditors of Peru, who may have rights which merit consideration, and which have originated in acts and contracts legally established.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I wish to know whether, in view of the trouble we have got into by meddling with the bondholders of Egypt, we are going, directly or indirectly, to meddle with the bondholders of Peru? I hope we shall have a clear answer to that Question.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE: The answer to the Question of the hon. Member for St. Andrews has reference to what has been done, not to what we are going to do; but if the hon. Member for Northampton wishes to know anything on the subject, I shall be happy to give an answer if a Question is put on the Paper.
  MR. WILLIAMSON: My Question was with reference to what you are going to do.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE: No, Sir.
  MR. WILLIAMSON: I shall repeat the Question on Friday.

  EXPLOSIVES ACT—APPOINTMENT OF MR. JAMES MARTIN, INSPECTOR FOR BRAWNEY AND ATHLONE.
  MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is a fact that Mr. James Martin, clerk of Petty Sessions for Brawney and Athlone, was appointed inspector under the Explosives Act at a salary of £25 per year; whether the appointment was made in the usual manner, by public notice; whether the duties were confined to the inspection of three or four houses of the urban portion of the district in which some gunpowder was sold; whether the Town Commissioners of Athlone were appointed the local authority under the Act for the urban district in 1884; whether, there being no duties to perform in the rural district, the Home Secretary would direct the attention of the Justices to the impropriety of retaining the services of Mr. Martin, under the circumstances, at the Board of Guardians'
  1058
  expense, especially when the services of the Constabulary are available free of expense; and, whether he would obtain, for the Guardians' information, a Return showing the names of the persons licensed; the fees paid; the detailed expenses incurred for printing, books, and postage; and the orders of the Justices directing the manner in which the fees were to be applied?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, in reply, that the gentleman referred to had been appointed for some years, and they had no information at the Home Office as to the salary paid, that being a matter entirely relegated to the Local Authority. They were not aware whether public notice was given of the appointment in this particular case; there was hardly anything for the officer to do. There were only five cases registered in the district, and there were none outside. So far as the police were concerned, a Circular was issued by the Home Office in October, 1884, to which the Irish Government assented, stating that they might be nominated as explosive officers; but the Town Commissioners had not taken advantage of it.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—PLEURO-PNEUMONIA IN IRELAND.
  MR. ALBERT GREYasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether there has been for some time past widespread prevalence of pleuro-pneumonia in Ireland, and whether every recent outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia in England is directly traceable to the importation of Irish store cattle; whether the present practice of giving less than the full value as compensation for the slaughter of the diseased animal encourages the farmer to conceal the fact of disease, and to sell the diseased animal; whether an epidemic of pleuro-pneumonia in the State of Illinois last year was promptly and effectually suppressed by the system of purchase at full price and slaughter; whether British graziers are allowed to import Irish lean stock notwithstanding the widespread prevalence of pleuro-pneumonia in Ireland, but are not allowed to import lean stock from Western America, notwithstanding the immunity from every form of cattle disease in that country; and, whether the Privy Council will make use of the

  1059
  powers conferred upon them by the third section of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1884, to permit the importation into this country of store cattle from such specified parts of the United States as may be proved to be free and exempt from all disease?
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, that before the Question was put, he wished also to ask the right hon. Gentleman. Whether it was not the fact that cattle in Ireland, with the single exception of the county of Dublin, had been singularly free from disease for a considerable period?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF DUCHY (Mr. CHAPLIN): In reply to the two first parts of the Question of the hon. Member (Mr. Albert Grey), it is not the case—and this perhaps will be an answer also to the hon. and gallant Member for Galway County (Colonel Nolan)—it is not the case that there is a widespread prevalence of pleura-pneumonia in Ireland. The hon. Member (Mr. Albert Grey) is also mistaken in supposing that every recent outbreak of the disease in England is directly traceable to the importation of store cattle into England from Ireland. According to the latest official Returns, it will be found that the disease is confined to the Province of Leinster, and principally to Dublin and the neighbourhood; and I find from last week's Return that there were not more than five fresh cases of outbreak and no more than 14 animals attacked in the whole country. In reply to the third paragraph of the Question, it must be to some extent a matter of opinion whether the present scale of compensation encourages farmers to conceal the fact of the existence of disease. We have no evidence of the fact to lead us to believe that it does; but, in any case, the scale is prescribed by law, and the Privy Council have no power to increase it. Fourthly, I have to say that, according to the latest Returns we have received, the disease still existed in Illinois and other Western States in the spring of the present year, and I am very sceptical, therefore, as to the epidemic of which the hon. Member speaks having been effectually suppressed during last year. Under these circumstances, we are not prepared to admit cattle from those States, except subject to slaughter and quarantine.
  MR. DUCKHAMasked, Whether the right hon. Gentleman could inform the
  1060
  House whether it was not a fact that the Canadian Government deemed it requisite to prohibit the removal of cattle through Canada from the Western States of America in consequence of disease existing in those States?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY,in reply, said, there was no doubt that that was the fact.

  DOMINION OF CANADA—THE MILITARY OPERATIONS.
  MR. ALBERT GREYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Government has received General Middleton's Despatch describing the recent Military operations in Canada; and, whether he will cause such Despatch to be laid upon the Table of the House?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Yes, Sir. General Middleton's despatch has been received by Her Majesty's Government. It is, I believe, the intention of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies to publish it in The London Gazette.

  LOSS OF LIFE AT SEA—THE ROYAL COMMISSION—THE EVIDENCE,
  MR. ATKINSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, If he will lay upon the Table Copy of any Communications which may have been received at the Board of Trade, from Shipping or other Associations, protesting against the proposed issue of evidence given on behalf of the Board of Trade before the Royal Commission on Loss of Life at Sea, until the evidence on the other side of the question be also fully taken?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): In answer to the Question of the hon. Member, I have to say that communications have been received from the General Shipowners' Society and the Hull Incorporated Chamber of Commerce and Shipping, protesting
  "Against the publication of the ad interim Report of Evidence taken before the Royal Commission on Shipping on the ground of its ex parte character—the Board of Trade case having been presented, and but a small portion of the shipowners' reply having been as yet heard."
  The Central Executive of Shipowners of the United Kingdom have forwarded to the Board of Trade copies of two letters

  1061
  which they have addressed to the Chairman of the Royal Commission on the subject. Without expressing an opinion as to the expediency of such partial publication, I would point out to the hon. Member that the matter rests entirely with the Commission, and that the Board of Trade have no power whatever to prevent or postpone the publication of the Report, or of any portion of it. I have no objection to lay on the Table copies of the two letters referred to in the first part of my answer.

  POOR LAW (ENGLAND AND WALES)— HUNGEEFORD BOARD OF GUARDIANS-APPOINTMENT OF MASTER AND MATRON FOR THE WORKHOUSE.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he has seen, in The Marlborough Times of 25th July, an advertisement of the Hungerford Union Board of Guardians for a master and matron for the workhouse, which advertisement states that they must be members of the Church of England; and, whether the Guardians are legally entitled to impose such an ecclesiastical test as a qualification for these offices; and, if not, what steps will be taken to secure the withdrawal of the advertisement?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): There has been no mooting of the Board of Guardians since Notice of the Question was given; but I am informed by the Clerk of the Union that he prepared the advertisement in the same form as one which was issued some years since, and that the Guardians had made no specific order as to candidates being members of the Church of England. If, however, the Guardians had given directions in this matter, the Local Government Board would have no authority to interfere, as the Guardians could, if they thought fit, determine to elect candidates who are members of the Church of England. On the occasion of the last visit of our Inspector, there were 123 inmates of the workhouse, of whom two only were returned as Dissenters.

  RETURNS OF GROUND RENT— HOLDERS AND OWNERS OF MINING ROYALTIES.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his
  1062
  attention has been directed to the two Returns, given Notice of for Thursday next, relating to Ground Rents and Royalties on Mines; and, whether he will, on behalf of the Government, undertake that these Returns shall be furnished to the extent which it may be found possible to give them by the respective departments?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, that he had made inquiries of the Departments concerned; but he found that it was quite impossible for them to furnish the information desired by the hon. Member, even if the House saw fit to order the Returns which he proposed to move for. The Return of 1874 was based on the valuation list and the rate books, and on information supplied by the Clerks of Boards of Guardians and other local officers; but he was informed that the valuation list did not usually give the amount of ground rents, nor were the royalties on mining property ever stated.

  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE—REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.
  MR. INCEasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the Committee of Inquiry into the practice and procedure of the High Court of Justice, presided over by the Master of the Rolls, had made their Report; if not, whether he can state when such Report is expected to be made; and, whether a Copy will be placed upon the Table?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER),in reply, said, that the Report in question had not yet been received, and until it had been presented it was impossible to say whether it would be laid on the Table or not.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What Business the Government proposed to take on Wednesday and Thursday?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, that the first Order for to-morrow was the third reading of the Appropriation Bill, and he hoped after that they would be able to proceed with the Report on the Criminal Law Amendment Bill. On Thursday the Indian Budget would be taken.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONasked whether any Business was fixed to come on after the Indian Budget?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that that must depend upon the progress they made that night and to-morrow. He could hardly answer the Question then.
  MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether it was intended to go on with the (Secretary for Scotland Bill that night; and, if so, after what hour it would not be taken?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS): It is intended to take the Bill to-night; but it is impossible to name an hour.

  POOR LAW GUARDIANS (IRELAND) BILL—LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
  MR. SEXTONasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, What course the Government mean to take on the Amendment of the Lords in the Poor Law Guardians (Ireland) Bill, maintaining the vote by proxy at Poor Law Elections in Ireland, and on the Amendment maintaining the strength of ex-officio members on each Board of Guardians at one-half the total number of the Board instead of one-third, the proportion adopted by this House?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): I am afraid I am not in a position to give a very definite answer to the hon. Member. The Amendments are very important, and would give rise to considerable discussion. On Thursday I will give a more definite answer.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to give Notice that, in the event of the Government maintaining the Amendments of the Lords, which render the Bill worse than useless, I will move, on going into Committee, that the Order be discharged.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES BILL.
  MR. GRAYasked, When the second reading of the Bill for the Housing of the Working Classes would be taken?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, it was hardly likely that they would be able to take the second reading of the Bill before Friday.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked that the modifications proposed to Clause 13 should be made known as soon as possible, observing that it was almost the only clause proposing new and valuable legislation, and he hoped it would not be cut out.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he would make known the Amendments as soon as the Forms of the House would permit.

  EGYPT (THE SOUDAN)—REPORTED DEATH OF OSMAN DIGNA.
  In answer to Sir WALTER B. BAKTTELOT,
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, that a telegram had been received to the effect that Osman Digna was believed to have been killed, but a subsequent telegram stated that the report of his death was untrue.

  EGYPT—THE MILITARY EXPEDITION TO THE SOUDAN—LORD WOLSELEY'S REPORT.
  MR. M'COANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Lord Wolseley has made any Report on the late Expedition to the Soudan; and, if so, whether it will be laid before Parliament before the end of this Session?
  THE SECRETARY OR STATE (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Lord Wolseley has reported on his operations from time to time, and his Reports have been laid before Parliament. There are a few Papers subsequent in date to those in the collection, called Egypt No. 13, which I will take steps to have presented.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (METROPOLIS)—CONTAMINATION OF THE RIVER LEA.
  In reply to Mr. JOHN HOLMS,
  THE PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, that the Local Authority of Tottenham had decided to construct sewage works, with the view of removing the sewage of the district from the River Lea; and the Local Government Board had sanctioned the requisite loan.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. WESTsaid, in view of the Business of the Session, it would be conve-

  1065
  nient to know which of the remaining Government Orders they intended to proceed with?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: We hope the House will proceed with all of them.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND) BILL. [Lords.]— [BILL 249.]
  (The Chief Secretary for Ireland.)
  LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND) BILL. [Lords.]— [BILL 249.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): In rising to move that this Bill be now read a second time, I will be as brief as circumstances will permit. I am perfectly aware that I am dealing with no new subject; and, while I explain some of the provisions of the Bill, I must claim some indulgence when I say that, to me, this is a perfectly new subject, and that I am addressing large numbers on both sides of the House who are, so to speak, experts on the question of land in Ireland. At this period of the Session I am quite certain of this—that I should not only be doing an injury to the prospects of this measure by making a long statement, but that I should weary the House by recapitulating the different stages of legislation with regard to land in Ireland. Still more do I think that I ought to avoid as much as possible controversial topics; and although many sitting around me may from time to time have found serious objections with the land legislation of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone), yet I think this is no occasion for us to raise fresh controversies, or to try to prove that the prophecies we made in bygone days have been fulfilled. The House will ask us to be, at all events, practical, with the knowledge that it is impossible, even if we should wish it, to put the legislative clock back again. We consider it is our duty to take the existing state of affairs in Ireland as we find them, and to endeavour to find a remedy for a condition of things which we think more or less disastrous to the best interests of that country. Whether this Bill he a good or a bad one, whether it passes or not, I do not think that we ourselves or the
    1066
    House will regret spending some hours in endeavouring to promote a better state of things in Ireland, and create a stir in the land market of that country, which is now in a state of absolute stagnation, and the infusion of energy, enterprize, and the outlay of capital into its chief industries. It must be admitted that this particular branch of land legislation in Ireland has been taken up in bygone years by prominent Members on both sides of both Houses of Parliament, and, therefore, the utmost ingenuity would not suffice to bring it within the range of Party politics. It may be said that this is not a perfect Bill, and that some of its details are capable of amendment; but what I would urge on the House is this—that if in its main provisions it proceeds on the lines of previous proposals put forward from both sides of the House, and if its guarantees as regards State money are adequate, Her Majesty's Government may fairly claim, not only that it should receive due attention, but also favourable consideration for its adoption by a majority of the House. There are very strong reasons indeed why, even at this late period of the Session, this question should be dealt with. As regards this matter of the purchase of land in Ireland, it is true that for years there has been an agitation existing; but I think that Parliament it self has been very much to blame as an agitator. I will explain my meaning in this way. It is now 15 years since proposals of this nature were made in a practical shape in the Bright Clauses of the Land Act of 1870. Since then the 5th part of the Act of 1881 has further attempted to deal with this question of land purchase; and, subsequently, in 1883, a Resolution was brought forward by the noble Lord the present First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton), which met with the almost unanimous acceptance of both sides of the House. Since then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan), in a speech of remarkable ability, also brought forward a measure attempting to deal with this vexed question; and we have something more than an intimation that, if the late Government had remained in Office, further proposals would have been made. It may be assumed, therefore, that for the last 15 years abortive proposals have been continually made

    1067
    on this subject, and it is impossible for any interest, and especially for suck an interest as that of land, which is easily upset by false hopes and constant agitation, to thrive under such conditions, and not to be affected thereby. In having brought forward these abortive proposals, Parliament is in some respects a sinner; and I venture to urge upon the House that the time has arrived for something like decisive action to be taken—that the time has arrived to make a final effort in the right direction, and to promote, as I before observed, something like a movement in the land market in Ireland. In dealing with a measure of this kind, the main thought that will arise in the mind of any man anxious for the future of land in this country will be, in the first place, how far it is good for any community that a Bill of this sort should be universally adopted—I mean, that supposing such a scheme as we proposed should meet with universal adoption, how far it would meet with the adoption of the tenant farmers themselves. I have always held with regard to the question of tenant proprietors in England and Ireland, that there is some land far more suitable for the purpose than that in other localities. I have always held that you cannot deal the same with unfertile land as with fertile land. From my own slight experience as a farmer, I can say that there is a vast amount of land in some districts in Ireland, such as parts of Galway and Mayo, where with a certain acreage and a certain amount of stock, a balance may be made in favour of the cultivator, yet, if small holdings were created in those very districts, it might produce something like disaster to the proprietors. These are mere matters of surmise; but I would ask the House to believe that Her Majesty's Government have brought forward this Bill, at this period of the Session, by reason of the fact that, at the present moment, land is practically an unsaleable commodity in Ireland. If, therefore, a change for the better can be brought about, the Government will consider that the object of their Bill has been amply obtained. I will not detain the House long by the very slight sketch which I propose to give of the scheme of the Bill. The first and most prominent feature of the present measure which strikes the ordinary reader is,
    1068
    that it is entirely permissive in its character. Transactions in land under the Bill, not as regards price, but sale, also, are entirely voluntary on the part of the owner. In the next place, we propose to amend certain proposals contained in the 5th part of the Act of 1881, and also to further amend that Act by extending some of its provisions. The clauses of the Act of 1881, with regard to the purchase of holdings, were, no doubt, accepted at the time as likely to be successful; but we all know that, when put to the test of experience, they practically failed—indeed, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Border Burghs stated, in moving a similar Bill on this subject last year, as regarded the Act of 1881 and particular clauses of the Act of 1870, that if their combined action had resulted in enabling one tenant in 400 to purchase, that would be the maximum. The right hon. Gentleman at that time, by his Bill, enlarged the scheme of the Act of 1881 by providing that there should be two advances, one of a guaranteed and the other of an unguaranteed character. He proposed that the unguaranteed sum should be at the rate of £4 10 s., and should not exceed three-fourths of the purchase money. The guarantee was to be of a local nature. I have heard that that is a proposal which, if it ever had been submitted, would not have met with the acceptance of Parliament. That scheme, however, is not the one before the House. The chief changes that we propose are that all future loans are to be granted for 49 years, at a charge of £4 per annum for every £100; and that where the loans are guaranteed, the advance is to be for the whole of the purchase money. There is a further prominent feature in the Bill, which is that power shall be granted to the Land Commission to convey an indefeasible title to the new owner by a vesting order. Then there are other changes to this effect, that the Land Commission shall only lend the whole of the purchase money where the landlord or some other person shall deposit one-fifth as a guarantee. I am aware that this question of guarantee is one which may lead to controversy. It is true that the offer is a very large and considerable one, and that the system of granting the whole of the purchase money is one that is, I believe, comparatively new, being introduced for

    1069
    the first time by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Border Burghs, in the proposals which were made by the late Government for legislation of this nature. But if legislation of this character is sound in itself, and if the principle has been adopted again and again by Parliament, then Her Majesty's Government are justified in proceeding further on the same lines and in advancing the whole money on the ground already mentioned. It has been urged, in some quarters, that this is too large an offer to make, and that you are placing other tenants in a disadvantageous position, perhaps, in making such a large and wide proposal; and it has also been urged that we are offering too much in the shape of a bribe—that the result will be a rush into the land market of tenants, land-jobbers, and others, and that the scope of the Bill will be extraordinarily extended. For myself, I am not afraid of any such extraordinary rush into the land market—neither can Her Majesty's Government be fairly accused in these proposals of gambling with the present situation. The present stagnation in that direction is simply lamentable; and if the Government can produce anything like a movement as regards purchase, then the Bill will have justified itself. Well, now I have further to add, with reference to this advance by the Land Commission, that 3 per cent is to be charged on the deposit of one-fifth, and that, of course, in case of failure, the Land Commission are to make use of that deposit in order to provide against loss, and they are also to be guaranteed a power of sale, which shall only be exercised as a very last resource. Then another proposal is—and it is a large proposal in the Bill—to place a charge on the Irish Church Surplus as a guarantee to our scheme. That may also be subjected to adverse criticism. First, considering that this measure is a very large advance on any previous measure of the same kind, and that it is more distinctly for the benefit of Ireland, I do not see why a fund exclusively Irish in its character should not be set apart in this way, and utilized in its support. But it must be understood that it must be regarded as to be only made use of as the very last resource, and so that any loss that may be sustained will have to be made good. There are other means, too, to
    1070
    be realized; for it will be the duty of the Court to make good any loss by the deposit, and to sell up the tenant, and realize, before they fall back upon the fund to which I have alluded. Then there is another change, which I have already mentioned, and that is the vesting order guaranteed by the Land Commission, and which was also in the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Border Burghs. We propose to extend that, not only to the holding, but to the interest in the holding also. That is done with this view—that the land should be conveyed by the cheapest possible process. We assume that any tribunal appointed under an Act like this would take every possible means in their power to ascertain the title of any land they propose to convey, so that it should be conveyed, as far as they were concerned, secure from any future civil or legal process. I should like to say one word as to the machinery by which this Bill is to be carried out. It is proposed, as hon. Members are aware, to add two fresh Commissioners to the Land Commission for the purpose of carrying out the Act.
    MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman name them?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY: I have always noticed in a Bill of this kind, when it is introduced, that where a Commissioner is to be appointed, the name of the gentleman to be appointed creates more excitement and interest and discussion than the whole of the other provisions of the Bill put together. I cannot, therefore, I suppose, expect to experience any immunity as regards that matter. Of course, the Government are anxious to meet the general wishes of the House in this respect; and I think, at all events, the House will naturally expect their names to be given before we go into Committee on the Bill. I have not had sufficient experience of these vexed questions as to the working of that Court to be able to form a judgment on the course we propose It is enough for me to mention that the question has been most carefully considered by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and other Members of the Government, who have given a vast amount of attention to the question for many years; and I need not tell hon. Members that, if these proposals are to be carried out successfully, there will be an enormous onus

    1071
    thrown on the tribunal, and the Government, therefore, are very anxious that the Court shall be as strong as possible. The proposal in the Bill is to give the Land Commission power to appoint a solicitor, who would deal with the vexed question of title. Other powers will also be given, the aim of which is to strengthen the tribunal under the Bill, to which I need not now further allude. I shall not detain the House more than a few minutes longer. The House is quite aware that this Bill, which is bristling with legal technicalities, is not an easy question for a layman to handle. I will, however, give the House its main features before I sit down. One main feature is, that in the case of any sale, it being a voluntary act between landlord and tenant, one-fifth of the purchase money is to be devoted to the guarantee fund. The next important change is the advance for a term of 49 years of the purchase money at a charge of £4 for every £100. As to the working of the Bill itself, I will give one short example before I sit down. In the case of a tenant who is paying £10 rent, if he buys his land at 20 years' purchase, say, £200, under the Bill, the charge of the Land Commission to the purchaser will be £8 per annum, and the proportion of the tenant's rate will be something like 12 s. a-year. The purchaser will, therefore, pay at the rate of £8 12 s. per year for 49 years, as against £10; and, at the end of 49 years, the land becomes the absolute property of the late tenant. It may be said that that is a very large offer; and it may also be noted that it creates a great deal of discrepancy between a purchaser under this Bill and other tenants; but I believe these matters will very much settle themselves, if the Bill he adopted by the House. But hon. Members must also remember that, it the Bill has any successful result at all, it will improve the demand for land, and most likely prevent anything like a considerable diminution of rent. I have to thank the House for listening so patiently to a somewhat imperfect statement, and for having accorded to it a consideration which it has scarcely deserved. Her Majesty's Government are most anxious that the Bill should become law in as speedy a time as possible. Although this is a late period of the Session, and although, only a very short space of time
    1072
    has elapsed since they Lave accepted Office, yet, looking at the state of things in Ireland, where the difficult questions relating to the land are of the most vital importance as affecting all interests in that country, the Government refuse to sit with their hands folded, and to do nothing to promote a better and more prosperous state of things in the interests of the whole community. The right hon. Baronet concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Chief Secretary for Ireland.)
    MR. WALKERsaid, that, as far as he personally was concerned, he desired to support the principle of the Bill. As he understood the Bill, it might be divided into three parts. The first related to the guarantee, which consisted of the deposit of one-fifth, and the advance of the whole of the purchase money; the second related to the legal machinery by which the Bill was to be worked; and the third related to the use to be made of the Church Surplus Fund. He was in favour of the first point; but so far as regarded the legal machinery which the Bill provided, he was not in a position to condemn it, inasmuch as that legal machinery constituted a portion of, and indeed was a transcript of, the Bill of the late Government, for which he (Mr. Walker) was himself, to a great extent, responsible. The deposit of one-fifth of the purchase money was a substitute for the guarantee of the Local Authority provided by the Bill brought in by his right hon. Friend the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan); but he (Mr. Walker) must confess, however, that he preferred the machinery which the present Bill provided. But when he came to the proposal relating to the Church Surplus Fund, he looked at that in an entirely different manner, and he could not quite agree with the proposal embodied in the Bill. That fund, as he understood it, was set apart in order to be devoted to great national objects, such as Education and Imperial purposes, and it was in the hands of the State still. He could not, therefore, understand why the State should guarantee the State in the way proposed, or why that fund, whatever its amount might be, but which was said to amount to about £1,000,000,

    1073
    should be diverted to what appeared to him to be an illegitimate purpose, from its otherwise legitimate one—namely, to serve one of two purposes; either to increase the price of land unduly, or to secure the debt of the improvident man at the expense of the provident one. The dedication of that fund for the object mentioned seemed to him to be unnecessary, and contrary to the principle of the Act of Parliament. This use of the Church Surplus was an unnecessary excrescence on the Bill, and it would be impolitic to apply it in the manner proposed. He wished now to advert to two or three matters which had struck him in the reading of the Bill. He did not think that the provisions by which it was proposed that £5,000,000 should be allocated to the purchase of land so as to create a peasant proprietary was at all sufficient. Unless the Act was to be a tentative measure, it appeared to him to be a ridiculous sum for such a purpose. The proposal in the Bill of the late Chief Secretary for that purpose was to allocate £20,000,000. He desired, too, to see a few alterations made in regard to the legal machinery. Power was given to the Land Commissioners to declare that a sale was made subject to a mortgage or charge. In his opinion, that provision was extremely objectionable. Another matter worthy of notice, looking to the future working of the Bill, was that of the purchasers under the Act of 1870, excluding glebe tenants, who would occupy a peculiar position under it; but the position of the purchasers under the Act of 1881 was one which would require serious consideration. If they were left in their present position, much heart-burning would be created which the right hon. Gentleman who moved the second reading of the Bill would have to answer for. Therefore, how they were to be dealt with was a matter for his consideration. Again, in the case of tenants belonging to a village or town which formed a portion of the estate that was about to be sold, he thought these tenants should not be left out in the cold. Provision ought also to be made to prevent a loss accruing to the landlord for the investigation of title and other legal formalities, in case the sale of the property was not carried out. That portion of the Bill he (Mr. Walker) pro-
    1074
    posed to remedy at a future stage. The working of the Act would depend upon the persons who had to carry it into effect; and, therefore, before the Act could be criticized fully, it was necessary to know to whom its administration was to be intrusted. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would soon be able to name the persons by whom the Bill was to be administered. If it should once get into the minds of the Irish people that the Act was passed for the purpose of enabling the landlord to sell his land at an increased price, it would be certain to be a dead letter. On looking at the 17th clause, hon. Members would see how important it was that the names of those persons should be known to the House; for it would be seen that the Lord Lieutenant had the power to provide that those two Commissioners should specially attend to the business imposed on the Land Commission by this Act. What would be the result? This Act imposed upon the Commission duties of a most important judicial character; and supposing, as he thought himself entitled to assume, that the two new Commissioners were laymen, were they to be charged alone with the execution of this judicial business, from which the legal Chief of the Commission was excluded? Then there was the important question of the value of incumbrances to be considered. The Bill gave power to the Commissioners to apportion incumbrances, annual charges, and so forth, and he thought it ought also to give them power to capitalize, commute, and to value those charges. He alluded to these difficulties with the most friendly feeling towards the Bill; for, however much he might doubt the wisdom of certain provisions, the object of the Bill had his most entire approval.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, the reason he had blocked the Bill was not because he disapproved of its principle—that of the purchase of land by tenants—for that had been for a long time a great desire of his to see carried into effect, but because he believed that the measure was wholly inadequate for the purpose proposed, and that, therefore, it would be an abortive one. He had been in great hope, when he understood that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of Ireland (Lord Ashbourne) was going to bring

    1075
    in a Bill dealing with the subject, that it would be an effective measure, one that would be of great service in enabling tenants to purchase their holdings; but, as it was now framed, he felt compelled to look upon it with great disappointment. He had searched high and low throughout the Bill to find one redeeming feature in it; but he could discover nothing in it that would commend it to his notice. The most that could be predicted in its favour was that it might be wholly inoperative; but he was afraid that, if it passed, instead of being inoperative, it would be highly dangerous on the one hand, and, to an absolute certainty, it would be exceedingly costly and expensive on the other. The Body which would be appointed by the Bill to carry out its conditions, would be the Land Commission; and those who knew anything about Ireland were fully cognizant of the working of the Land Commission to know that, by its working, the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act of 1881 had been rendered nugatory. In proof of that, he had only to refer to the Return which had been called for by himself, which showed the manner in which the Land Act had been worked. It showed where tenants were anxious to purchase, and where purchasers were anxious to give a fair and not at all an extravagant price for their holdings, that the officers of the Land Court, by precept and by advice to hold on a little longer and they would get the land cheaper, had dissuaded them from carrying their intentions into effect, or they had declined to advance the money. Thus, in one case in the county of Mayo, where the landlord and the tenant had agreed that the purchase of the holding should be carried into effect at the price of 16½ years' purchase, and the security was considered so good that the local bank had undertaken to advance the remaining one-fourth of the purchase money, the Land Commission had interferred to prevent the landlord from selling and the tenant from purchasing at that price, and had refused to advance the three-fourths of the purchase money, with the result that they themselves eventually bought the unfortunate proprietor out at 12 years' purchase. In his opinion, the present deadlock in the Irish land market was entirely due to the action of the Land Commission, to whom it
    1076
    was proposed to intrust the carrying into effect of the provisions of the present Bill. Why did not the Government propose to intrust the working of the Bill to the Landed Estates Court, which was an excellent tribunal, exactly suitable and competent for the purpose, and which, in any case, would have to be referred to in almost every transaction? That Court had full power to carry out sales; they had the power to apportion, and the knowledge how to apportion incumbrances, and commanded the confidence of the mortgagees? Why was that admirable Body to be ignored, and why should they be paid for doing nothing? The proposal in the present Bill was to appoint two officers, and that two fresh offices were to be created, and more public money was to be; spent unnecessarily. Those two officers had not been named; and he contended that, inasmuch as their appointment would cause an expenditure of public money, that hon. Members should be informed as to whom the Government intended appointing. But it appeared that the Government were going to bring in two officers, about whom the House had no knowledge whatever at present, to carry out the most important, complicated, and difficult duties that had ever-been intrusted to any gentlemen in connection with the Irish Land Question. Those officers would have power over the sale of about one-half of the entire land of Ireland. They proposed paying them £2,000 per annum. They could not get good professional men—they could not got men worth their salt and in decent practice—who would accept the position for so small a remuneration. The Government proposed to put a couple of men in an inferior position amongst others at a salary not exceeding two-thirds of that of the gentlemen among whom they would have to sit according to the proposed constitution of the Court. If the work was to be done in that way at all, it would be infinitely better done by appointing one thoroughly good man who should be well and adequately remunerated for his services. If the Government got the Landed Estates Court to do the drudgery, he believed there would be plenty of really competent men to be obtained who would do the work proposed to be given to the two Commissioners gratis; but it would not be pus-

    1077
    sible to get men to undertake the duties of the office if it were to be in any way associated with the Land Commission unless they were paid adequately for their services. He wanted to know why it was that the names of the proposed Commissioners had been kept secret? He should have thought that if the Government had been able to secure the services of really good men to work the measure, instead of being ashamed of their names, they would have been only two anxious to make them public. The success of a measure of the kind depended upon the character and stability of the men by whom it was administered. He spoke the views of moderate men on both sides of the House, when he complained that the names of the proposed Commissioners were not given, so that hon. Members might criticize them at that stage. It had been said that the names of the Commissioners under the Land Act had not been made known until just before the measure had reached the Committee stage in that House; but it must be recollected that that Bill had been introduced in that House, whereas the present measure had been introduced in the House of Lords. There was a great deal in this Bill that savoured of sham to his mind. It was going to be a sham Court. If, as he had said, the proposed Commissioners were good men, the Government would not be ashamed to name them. The sum of £5,000,000 put down for expenditure under the measure was a sham, because nothing under £20,000,000 would enable the measure to be successfully carried out, and the proposal to reserve one-fifth of the purchase money was even a greater sham still. Under a reasonable Act, he believed a great deal might be done with the sum of £20,000,000, as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary for Ireland. They were told that this was a noble and generous measure, and that the tenant was to have the whole of the purchase money. Well, he supposed that if the tenant who bought the land was, for that purpose, to receive the whole of the purchase money, the person who sold the land should also receive from that tenant the whole of the purchase money. But it was to be otherwise. Whilst the whole of the purchase money would be advanced to the tenant, the vendor would only re-
    1078
    ceive four-fifths of the amount, the other fifth being absorbed by the State in the event of the tenant not paying his instalments. That was equivalent to the State promising £1 and paying 16 s. The probability was that the provisions of the measure would be taken advantage of only by men who were utterly broken down in resources and in credit, and who were so hard pressed by their creditors that they would accept anything. He did not believe that the provisions of the Bill would be taken advantage of at all, because another sham connected with the measure was—and the noble and learned Lord who introduced the Bill knew it perfectly well—that the tenants had not the slightest intention of availing themselves of the provisions of the Bill. They did not mean to buy their holdings. They were imbued with the idea that they were going to get the fee simple of the land without paying for it at all, and he believed they had been very much encouraged in this belief by the action of the Land Commissioners. In Ireland at the present moment there were those who regularly bought the interest in their holdings; but that was a very different matter from purchasing the holdings. When a tenant was willing to give 16 or 18 years' purchase, agitators stepped in and said—"Hold on and you will get your holding without doing that;" and it was not likely that tenants, because of that or any ether Bill, would immediately spring up and give a fancy price for their farms. They knew very well what was thought by a certain class in the North of Ireland on this measure. They knew what was the opinion of Mr. Michael Davitt, and those who were associated with that gentleman, upon it. He had spoken very strongly at public meetings, and had called it a "Bill for the Relief of Pauper Landlords." He advised, and in very clever and very strong language he had almost ordered, the tenants not to purchase their holdings; and he (Colonel King-Harman) had very good reason to believe that that advice would be acted upon. It might be that there would be found a man here and there more enterprizing than his neighbours who would be willing to purchase; but the Bill would not be taken advantage of generally. A landlord might get offers to purchase a farm here and a farm there; but that

    1079
    would introduce a system of having small farms dotted indiscriminately over an estate, which would be objected to by the landlords, who were opposed to anything but a continuity of holdings. The unwillingness of tenants to avail themselves of powers of the sort was shown by the fact that last year only 241 applications to purchase came before the Land Commission, and out of those 241 cases there were 144 where single tenants would have purchased their holdings, and there were nearly 100 where tenants in twos and threes wished also to do so, and the landlords would not agree to that. Beyond that, a great many of those were refused by the Commission because the tenant and landlord had agreed upon what the Commission considered was too high a price. In most cases the Land Commission would not give 16 years' purchase, though in two cases they had allowed 26 years and 28 years. But it so happened that in the former case the landlord was a Member of the present Government, and in the latter case a Member of the late Government. He did not mean to impute any motives to the vendors in those cases; but the circumstances were somewhat suspicious. He would tell the House that although some landlords would not sell, they would do what they could to assist in the formation of a peasant proprietary. They would give leases in perpetuity, fee farm grants, &c. He would ask whether the Government would try to make this a good and useful Bill by granting some powers for the granting of perpetuity leases and fining down rents? If the Government were really anxious to do a great amount of good with the measure, that would be really the very best thing which they could do. If they would advance the whole of the money for the purpose of fining down rents, it would do a vast amount of good to both landlords and tenants. He objected to the measure as it stood, because it seemed to have been brought in in much the same way in which railways were made abroad in Russia. The Czar took a map and a ruler and drew a line from one place to another, and said—"We are going to make a railway between those two places," irrespective of the difficulties which existed in the physical conformation of the districts over which they were to pass. Just in
    1080
    the same headlong way the Government said—"We are going to give you a Purchase Bill." In his opinion, the Government had had the opportunity—indeed, they had it still—of working out this matter in a statesmanlike manner, but had not taken advantage of it. They ought to look the matter boldly in the face, and not to run away from it. If the Government had consulted men of experience who lived in Ireland, without confining the matter within the narrow limits in which it had been kept, they would have found out what would have been best for the country. He hoped, however, they would even yet bring forward a measure which would be acceptable to those for whom it was intended, and which would realize the result which was desired.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he desired to speak entirely for himself, and not—as he had been unable to consult with them—on behalf of those hon. Members with whom he had been usually associated in matters of this kind during the past couple of years. He was well acquainted with the views of both landlords and tenants in the West of Ireland, and believed that they would be favourable to the measure. He was very much struck with the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman); but he (Colonel Nolan) believed that £5,000,000 was amply sufficient, for he believed there certainly would not be £5,000,000 worth of land sold before the new Parliament met; and even if there was, and more money were needed, it could be applied for. He thought that there were many little faults in the Bill which might be taken exception to; for he believed that the lawyers, in drafting measures of the kind, adhered too much to the old system of feudal tenure. The best way would be to destroy the whole entail and feudal system. He believed that its machinery was a distinct improvement on that of the Land Act, although, as far as it went, the machinery of that Act was good and proper. In the case of this Bill, however, he did not think the guarantee was at all necessary; for it appeared to him that the most important point in the Bill had escaped the notice of the previous speakers, and had only been mentioned incidentally. That was the reduction of the rate of interest from 5

    1081
    per cent to 4 per cent. Now, he regarded that as the most important part of the Bill. By that it would be possible for the tenant to purchase his land by the payment of a rent not exceeding the amount he was now paying. Therefore, he supported the second reading of the Bill; and, on the whole, he would like to see it pass very much, especially as it proposed to enable the tenants to purchase under terms that would insure the whole of the advance at 4 per cent. It would afford an opportunity of seeing whether they were willing to purchase on the terms offered to them. There was, however, one important blot which might be easily got over in Committee, and that was that there was no provision for increasing the holding of the tenant. He thought it would be quite possible to introduce a clause which would enable a tenant not only to purchase his own holding on the terms mentioned in the Bill but also a few adjoining acres of a grass farm with the consent of the owner. There were many tenants who would be very desirous to obtain a small piece of grass land; and there were, in many places, vast tracts of land which, under the strict rules of economy, should not be all under grass at all. If some provision were introduced into the Bill which would enable tenants to acquire small portions of such grass land near their holdings, he believed that it would meet with very great favour in both Mayo and Galway. It would give the Bill a great impetus, and with such a clause he believed that the Bill might be a considerable success. He should, therefore, at the proper time, move the insertion of a clause of the nature he had sketched. It would, doubtless, be a salutary provision, and he hoped the Government would see their way to agreeing to it. Of course, there was much to be said against the Bill, and certain political difficulties had to be taken into consideration; but he believed that if they were, at that stage of the Session, to enter into any such matters, and to re-open the whole agrarian question in Ireland, the Bill would not have the slightest chance of becoming law.
    MR. LEWISsaid, he hoped sincerely that the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Nolan) would not be taken up by the Government. The idea that a tenant should
    1082
    be able to insist upon obtaining portion of a neighbouring property——
    COLONEL NOLAN: No, no. I did not say they should insist at all.
    MR. LEWIS,resuming, said, he believed that there would be no difficulty in making a purchase under the present law, in a case where both parties were agreed. He thought that they could understand the introduction of the cloven foot in any other case of that sort. He was sure that they all hoped to see a settlement of the differences between landlords and tenants in Ireland. He did not think, however, although he should, be heartily glad to see the reverse, that it was very likely that the Bill would be very largely taken advantage of. Unfortunately, besides other strong reasons, property in Ireland was so much subject to mortgage that it would be very difficult to arrange matters respecting sales in such a way as to satisfy the claims of mortgagor, mortgagee, and purchaser. It was, also, from that cause, almost impossible to acquire a good, clear title to small portions of land under the existing legal provisions. As to the remarks with regard to the Church Surplus, it did not seem to him that the Bill was open to objection on that account. Indeed, he could not understand why so many references had been made to that fund. It seemed to him that hon. Members had forgotten that Parliament had long since given up the idea of restricting it to the purposes originally intended. No doubt, when the Irish Church Act was passed, there was a solemn pledge given by Parliament as to the objects to which that Surplus was to be applied. But no sooner was that pledge given than there was the greatest eagerness on both sides of the House to get rid of it; and when his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Walker) objected to this fund being pledged under the Bill, he ought to remember that it was also pledged under the Arrears of Pent (Ireland) Act of his own Government in 1882. In fact, he (Mr. Lewis) had been under the impression that Parliament was solemnly pledged to use it only for certain purposes; but that pledge was no longer recognized on either side of the House. Then he (Mr. Lewis) was of the opinion that £5,000,000 was quite enough to provide in the first instance for the purposes of the Bill. Looking to their ex-

    1083
    perience of the Bright Clauses of the Act of 1870, no one could be so sanguine as to suppose that even under this, as it had been termed, most generous measure, £5,000,000 would not be sufficient to meet any demands that were likely to arise before the next Session of Parliament. He also thought the Government were quite right to make it a tentative measure. They might, after it had been tried, enlarge the amount, and introduce such amendments and alterations as experience would point out in the way of extension. Then, as to the Bill itself, it proceeded on the lines of old measures, for the House would recollect that by the Church Act of 1869, three-fourths of the purchase money was to be advanced at 4 per cent, repayable in 32 years, but not by way of annuity, but by way of advance of three-fourths of the purchase money at 4 per cent, the capital being repayable in 64 equal half-yearly instalments. That was rather an onerous bargain. In 1870 the first Irish Land Act passed, and then two-thirds of the purchase money was to be advanced, repayable by way of annuity at 5 per cent—that was to say, 4 per cent for interest, and 1 per cent for sinking fund. Then came the Land Act of 1881. Under that there was the same term of 35 years for the annuity, and three-fourths of the purchase money was to be advanced at 5 per cent. What was the Bill now before them? Surely they must all be impressed by the unfortunate relations which existed between landlords and tenants in Ireland, and by the great puplic interest which were involved in those circumstances, and they must, therefore, all desire the Bill to succeed, even if they did not think that it would. Did it then, he would ask, present features of an attractive character? He thought it did. First, the rate of interest was only 4 per cent—that was 3⅛ for interest and £1 per cent for sinking fund. That was, it seemed to him, a most generous and liberal offer from the State. Where he thought the Bill was onerous and would require alteration was in regard to the deposit of one-fifth of the purchase money. He maintained that if they were to regard the tenantry of Ireland as an honest respectable set of men this deposit was not necessary. Let it be remembered that the security which the State would hold against its advance was not only
    1084
    the landlord's interest in the property, but also the tenant's, which in many instances in the North of Ireland was worth more than the landlord's. The tenant's interest would be included in the mortgage just as well as the landlord's, and thus they would have a double security for the purchase money. He believed that the real mode of settling the Irish Land Question originally would have been by the institution of a liberal and generous system of land purchase. Half the misery and the public scandal produced by agrarian disputes in Ireland or by the unpleasant relations between landlord and tenant would have been avoided if the Bright Clauses had been made the primary instead of the subsidiary portion of the Land Act of 1881; and his great fear was that this retention of one-fifth of the purchase money would be a great impediment to the success of this measure. But as regarded the deposit, he must point out to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman) that the deposit would not necessarily come out of the landlord's pocket. If a tenant was anxious to buy he might agree to make the deposit himself. He must say that he far preferred the mode of guarantee which the late Government proposed to adopt in their last Bill. His belief was that that was a matter of vast importance to the safety of society, to the goodness of the debt, to the validity of the change, in making a guarantee of the district of the Poor Law Union binding the whole population to see that no defaulters were in their midst—he thought that morally that was one of the most valuable features in the Bill of the late Government, and one which would have carried them over difficulties of a financial character. It would have tended to promote, in the most powerful manner, the peace, good order, credit, and safety of the State. However, that was gone by, and it could not be denied that the security under which they were now asked to sanction an advance of public money was most ample. He next came to a most important and serious point which he thought the House should consider. There were a few purchasers under the Bright Clauses of the Act of 1870, who were now paying 5 per cent annuities for 35 years. In what position would they stand after the passing of the Bill?

    1085
    They would naturally say—"What fools we were when we took advantage of the provisions of the Act of 1870, when we might have had better terms by waiting; now we are left in the lurch with an annuity which involves 4 per cent, whereas those purchasers who have delayed until the present time will have the full amount of the purchase money advanced to them." It was, of course, possible to rectify the position of matters with reference to the small numbers of persons who had so purchased, and it would be only fair to do so. If it was not done a good deal of soreness would be left behind which might be the source of future controversies and disputes. He asked the House also to consider the position of those persons who had purchased under the Irish Church Act of 1869, and whose position was still worse, for they had purchased on the basis of the then existing rents, which had since been reduced under the operation of the Irish Land Act of 1881 from 20 to 25 per cent. Nor was that all, for the purchasers under the Church Act paid a higher rate of interest, with a shorter term of repayment, than under this Bill. These men ought to be placed in such a position that they would suffer no disadvantage from having bought before the Land Act of 1881. The present Bill should provide for all the points he had mentioned; and in that case it would be, even more than at present, a measure worthy the support and sanction of the House, and one that ought to be supported in a generous and thorough spirit, with no desire to carp at or criticize, but with an earnest wish that it might prove to be one tending to settle many of those problems with which the Irish Land Question was surrounded. That the provisions of the Bill taken as a whole in practical detail were generous, liberal, and fair to the landlords and tenants, while they were perfectly safe to the State, he ventured to affirm; and while he must press, without as he trusted any danger to the State, for a relaxation of the provisions with regard to the retention by the State of one-fifth of the purchase money as a guarantee, he did most earnestly press on the House not to pass by the grievous cases of hardship which the purchasers from the Irish Church Commissioners and those who had received advances under the Acts of 1870 and 1881 would suffer, if they were held
    1086
    to the terms of purchase laid down in those Acts, which compared so unfavourably with those embodied in the present measure. Let the House not falter in doing an act of fair play and justice to a body of men not connected with any particular Party or belonging to any particular class of society. The Bill was capable of being made a useful measure, and he hoped it would receive the sanction of the House.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, as the subject-matter of the Bill was one in which he had taken much interest for some years past, and had had a part in previous legislation, he would claim the attention of the House for some comments on it. It was when the present Government were last in Office in 1878, that he moved for, and presided over, an important Committee for inquiry into the working of the Bright Clauses of the Land Act of 1870 with a view to ascertain the best means of facilitating the acquisition of their holdings by tenants in Ireland; and, after that Committee had been appointed, he subsequently carried a Resolution in that House against the opposition of the then Government, calling upon them to give effect to the recommendations of that Committee, and to legislate on the subject. It had always been his belief that if they had then acted in a generous spirit on that Resolution and the Report of that Committee, much that had since occurred in Ireland might have been avoided. Popular opinion in Ireland was at that time in favour of the tenants becoming owners of their holdings. The best evidence of that was to be found in the fact that three-fourths of the glebe holders of that time became owners of their holdings under terms very far less advantageous than those now offered. The opportunity was lost on that occasion—no action was taken. Then followed the land agitation in Ireland; and, later, the Land Act of 1881. He had no desire, however, to rake up past controversies; but he desired to refer to the Report of that Committee, as it laid down certain principles within which the State might safely lend its aid to such a proposal, which he still himself adhered to. The fact was, that in the turn of the wheel of events the position of Parties seemed to have become reversed on this question. At the time he spoke of, it was the tenants of Ireland

    1087
    who were anxious for the opportunity of purchasing their holdings, and who desired an amendment of the Land Laws in Ireland in order to obtain full security, and the landlords were somewhat supine. As far as he could see, it was now the landlords of Ireland who came forward, and were urging the State to offer inducements to tenants to purchase their holdings, and who were offering splendid bribes with that object, while the tenants were supine upon the point. He was afraid that, even when this generous Bill was passed, in the present state of Ireland it would not have much effect. The real fact was that, at the time he spoke of, there appeared no prospect of obtaining any considerable amendment of the land tenure of Ireland; and it was vastly more important than it now was to move in the direction of full ownership. In 1881 the Land Act was passed, and that completely changed the position of the Irish tenants. It gave them a security of tenure, and a security of the improvements which they themselves effected in their holdings far beyond what was expected in 1878. The Land Act of 1881 was one of the greatest land reforms that was ever effected in any country, and one which might be defended on its merits upon economical grounds and upon grounds of justice; but since then it seemed to him that the Irish tenants had been far less eager and anxious to avail themselves of facilities for purchase of their holdings. The same Act embodied all the recommendations of the Committee of 1878, and the terms then offered by the State were extremely liberal. It was his belief that, in any ordinary times, the amended Bright Clauses would have produced very considerable effect; but the times had not been ordinary, and, in fact, it must be admitted they had not had much effect. That had been due to several causes. One point was that which he had already alluded to—namely, that the Tenure Clauses of the Act of 1881 had given such complete security that there was no longer the same motive or anxiety for becoming full owners as before. The second was that there was still so much uncertainty as to the future—when expectations, referred to by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) and the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman),
    1088
    were being held out by a political Party so powerful in Ireland as that represented and led below the Gangway that further great amendments would be made in the Land Act and land tenure, leading possibly to a further reduction of rent—it was not to be expected that tenants would be very anxious to enter into bargains with their landlords for the purchase of their holdings upon terms based on the present rents.
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I never suggested anything' of the kind.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he did not put the words in the mouth of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but alluded to the feeling entertained by the tenants in Ireland.
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I said they thought they would get the land for nothing.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman now went farther than he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had suggested. Personally, he did not believe the Irish tenants expected to get the land for nothing. On the contrary, they must expect them to wait and see the result of the General Election, and the views which the next Parliament might have upon this subject. It was his belief that that feeling would remain, and that, until all expectations of further great changes or reductions of rent were removed, no considerable effect would be given to any proposals for facilitating the purchase of holdings, even if the present Bill were passed with the most liberal offers. He knew that of late years many landlords had made most liberal offers to their tenants under the Act of 1881, proposing to leave the remaining one-fourth of the purchase money on second mortgage upon such terms that the tenants would pay less in the future in the shape of interest and instalments of the capital than their previous rent, and had met with no response to them. The offers had been invariably refused in the spirit to which he had alluded. The uncertainty as to the future had equally operated to prevent the sale of the landlord's property in the Landed Estates Court. In the uncertainty as to the future, the possibility of further agitation to reduce rents, it was not to be wondered at that purchasers should be unwilling to invest in land in Ireland. He was aware that some high authori-

    1089
    ties, such as the Duke of Argyll and, he thought, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), had attributed the block in the Landed Estates Court and the unsaleability of land to the fact that they had, by the Land Act, created a dual ownership of land, and that so long as property in land was not absolute that unsaleability would continue. He thought that was an error. It was a misconception of the effect and meaning of the Act of lb81 in relation to what existed before. In fact, before the Act of 1881, in a great part of Ireland, and certainly in Ulster, and on all well-managed estates elsewhere, a dual ownership of land had practically existed. By the custom of Ulster the tenant's interest was practically secure, and no landlord could deal with his land in the same absolute manner as in England. The Act of 1881 only gave full legal effect to that custom, and extended it over the whole of Ireland; but the existence of the previous custom and the practical dual ownership of land in Ulster did not prevent land being bought and sold for very fair prices, and, indeed, at a higher rate than in other parts of Ireland, where there was no such complete custom protecting the tenant's interest. It was his (Mr. Shaw Lefevre's) confident belief that the unsaleability of land at the present moment was due not to the dual ownership of land, but to the uncertainty as to the future—to the fear of further changes in the Act. They must recollect that purely agricultural land in England was now almost as unsaleable as it was in Ireland. Although they had had no Land Act here, there had been great reductions of rent—quite as great as in Ireland—and there was as much uncertainty here, not of a political character, but of an economic character, as to the future prices of agricultural produce, that land was almost unsaleable. Now, the Bill before them was mainly promoted in the interest of landlords. It was their hope that by its means they would be able to remove the block in the Landed Estates Court, to restore to land its saleable quality, by inducing the tenants to buy, and by using the State credit for the purpose. In fact, the terms offered in it formed, in his opinion, the most splendid bribe which had ever been held out in that direction. It proposed to
    1090
    reduce the rate of interest at which the State was to lend money from 3½ to 3 per cent; to extend the time of repayment from 35 to 49 years; and to advance the whole of the purchase money without any local guarantee. There was, indeed, a provision that one-fifth of the purchase money was to be retained by the State until that proportion of the purchase money was repaid by the annual instalments—that was, for 15 years. He could not, however, regard this provision as of any real importance or any real security to the State, for the real danger to the State was not the default of an individual, but a general movement in Ireland directed against the State for the reduction of the interest. The State, through the Land Commission, would be in direct relation to the occupying purchaser, and would be responsible for the collection of the whole of the interest. The retention of one-fifth of the purchase money was no security as between the State and the new purchaser; it would, however, be very inconvenient to the owner of the property who sold by keeping him out of his money for a long period, and it was of the nature of those provisions which would be knocked away, either in Committee or in the future. He would venture to suggest, therefore, that the Government would do wisely to abandon it. Setting aside that provision, let him look at the effect of the operation, and let him illustrate it by a case. Suppose a holding of £50 a-year, and let them presume that 20 years' purchase was agreed upon between the tenant and the owner. The purchase money would be £1,000, the whole of which the State would advance, retaining, however, one-fifth of it for 15 years. By reducing the interest to 3 per cent and spreading the repayment over so long a period as 49 years, the annual sum payable by the tenant purchaser would be only £40 a-year; of that, however, £10 a-year was practically an annual investment by the tenant purchaser in redemption of the fee, and adding, therefore, to his interest every year. It was only the interest of £30 which would compare with his previous rent of £50. Even with the instalment of the principal, and even if they added his share of local taxes now paid by the landlord, the tenant purchaser's payment would be much less

    1091
    than his previous rent, and he would become owner without any exertion whatever of his own. Now, let him point out the effect of this, if it should be largely adopted in Ireland. Suppose any landlord, for the purpose of relieving his property of incumbrances, were to sell to one-half of his tenants upon those terms. The effect would be that one-half of his tenants would be paying rent for ever, and the other half would be paying considerably less than their rent for a term of years; in fact, the real outgoing would be only three-fifths of their previous rent. What would be the views of those who would be paying rent for ever? Would they not complain greatly of their position? It appeared to him that the terms of the Bill were so generous, that if they were adopted to any large extent, and any considerable proportion of tenants were to become owners on such terms, it would be a considerable source of danger in the future. It would give rise to great discontent among those who were not favoured in that way, and they would either see an agitation to make the terms universal and compulsory, and for the general expropriation of landlords, or they would have a fresh agitation for a further reduction of rent on the part of those who remained tenants. He would also point out that there was another possible danger. Supposing these terms were largely accepted and a great number of tenants became owners of their holdings, and the State received their rents and practically was in the position of landlord, having advanced the whole purchase money, and being responsible through the Land Commission for the collection of the whole of the rent and of the whole instalments for a period of 49 years, there would be danger—unless there was some intervening local authority to act as a buffer. His right hon. Friend the Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan), in his Bill of last year, made provision for such local authority by requiring that there should be a local guarantee for the interest. That, however, did not give satisfaction, and in the absence of good local government in Ireland it was impossible to provide for any such security. He could not but hope, however, that in the new Parliament, with a greater extension of local self-government in its truer sense, some
    1092
    such provision might be passed which would provide a guarantee against the possible danger to the State to which he alluded. He looked upon the measure as tentative, and he ventured to hope that if any extension was to be made beyond the very moderate total contemplated by this Bill—namely, of £5,000,000—it would, in his opinion, be desirable that the operation should be effected, not directly through the Imperial Exchequer, but through the Local Authorities, who would be responsible for the collection of interest. But for the reasons he had stated, that until the Irish people saw what the disposition of the new Parliament would be upon the point, he did not think there would be any great application of this measure. Whenever the Irish people knew that no further extension would be made of the principle of the Irish Land Act, he had no doubt that a great number of applications under the Bill would take place. For the reasons he had stated, he believed that the Government had acted wisely in limiting the scope of the Bill to £5,000,000, leaving to future consideration the terms on which the measure might be extended, if, hereafter, it should be found desirable to do so. There was one other point which he wished to mention, and that was with regard to the purchasers of the glebe land of the Disestablished Church of Ireland. He could not but think that a very strong case had been made out by his hon. Friend (Mr. Lewis) in favour of the inclusion of these purchasers in the more liberal terms granted by the present Bill. It should be remembered that when the purchases under the Disestablishment Act were made the price of land was at its maximum, and that these persons gave 24 or 25 years' purchase upon their rents. They had not benefited by the Land Act of 1881, and their rent had been taken at an amount from which it might have been reduced if they had remained in their condition of tenants. He believed that many of the purchasers of glebe land had gone through much suffering and hardship in the endeavour honestly to pay their yearly instalments to the State. Looking at the whole position, and the fact that when these purchases were effected the price of land I in Ireland was at its highest, he thought that these persons were entitled to great

    1093
    consideration from the present Government. So he thought, also, were the purchasers under the Land Act of 1870, though not the purchasers under the Act of 1881. The latter had not so strong a case; for they bought subject to the possibility of their rents being reduced by the Land Commission. On the whole, looking at it merely as a tentative measure he should give the Bill his support, though, recognizing that it had danger in it as regarded the future, he should reserve to himself the liberty of making any conditions which might be thought desirable with regard to any future extension of the scheme.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET)said, that had it not been for the concluding words of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) he (Mr. Plunket) should not have known that the right hon. Gentleman intended to support the present Bill. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was partly philosophical and partly historical; and it was condemnatory generally of everybody and everything excepting his own earlier share in the discussion of the question; in all other respects it was as hostile a speech against the Bill as could possibly be made. Every warning that could be given to the House and public had been urged by the right hon. Gentleman. He urged every objection as strongly as he possibly could, while every objection that he made would apply equally, and some more strongly, to the Bill of last year, for which the late Government was responsible, than to this measure. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that the scheme proposed by the Bill of last year, requiring that there should be a local guarantee for the payment of interest, was utterly unworkable. The present Bill offered a different and much more valuable guarantee; but against it the right hon. Gentleman urged the dangers that would arise to England and the Treasury from that provision, forgetting that the same objections would apply even more strongly to the Bill introduced by his own Government—in fact, a more effective speech could not be made against the principle of any and every scheme for facilitating the growth of a peasant proprietary in Ireland, in its practical aspect, and of the necessity of State-aid, than that which the right hon. Gentleman, who prided him-
    1094
    self upon being the original apostle and the present champion of the principle, had just made. It was quite true that the right hon. Gentleman, as Chairman of a Committee of which he (Mr. Plunket) was also a Member, made certain proposals with the view to creating a peasant proprietary in Ireland, and that he (Mr. Plunket) felt it his duty to oppose such proposals. He was in favour of creating a solvent peasant proprietary in Ireland, if possible; but be was free to admit that if he had known at that time what was coming in future years he should have been less careful of small dangers, and more willing to accept considerable risks, than he was at the time. He did not, however, wish to make any comparison unfavourable to the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He fully admitted that the views of the right hon. Gentleman were then, no doubt, considerably in advance of his (Mr. Plunket's) own views with regard to a peasant proprietary. But the proposals the right hon. Gentleman then made, if carried out, would have proved utterly inadequate, as well as those would which he (Mr. Plunket) was prepared to make at that time. As to the other contentious part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech—the historical—he must just say one word. The right hon. Gentleman could not, if he tried, have more successfully thrown on the floor of the House a larger number of contentious questions, nor have offered stronger inducements to the Irish people to refuse these terms, in the hope of getting something more given them, than had been done in the speech which he had just delivered. If they were to approach the Bill in such a spirit as that, they might as well not be wasting the precious ebbing hours of the present Session upon it. In all the other speeches the question was approached in a spirit of friendliness, with the single exception of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman), who had strong feelings upon it, and who had, he (Mr. Plunket) must confess, struggled manfully against the bad times which the landlords of Ireland had endured. He would not attempt to answer his hon. and gallant Friend's criticisms of the Bill. They were founded mainly on his distrust of the tribunal which was to have

    1095
    the working of the measure. He was sorry he could not give the House any idea as to who the new Commissioners would be, although he had no doubt that those who had framed the Bill in this large and generous spirit would be guided by the same spirit in the appointment of the Commissioners. He believed that the names of the Commissioners would be declared before the next stage of the Bill; and then, if hon. Members, like his hon. and gallant Friend, were not satisfied with those Commissioners, they might take such steps in the matter as they might think fit. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) had spoken generally of this Bill with praise. There were one or two matters with which he expressed dissent, the first of which was that he did not think the Church Surplus should be applied to the purpose of the Bill. That was a very fair and clear objection for him to raise; but it should be remembered that any deficit arising by means of the Bill must be paid out of some public fund. And, if a public fund, why not an Irish fund? Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman objected that £5,000,000 was not enough to allow for the purposes of the Bill; but it must be borne in mind that it was only an experiment. If the experiments were successful, he did not believe that Parliament would hesitate to enlarge the scope of the Bill; but if the Bill was not to succeed, no question could arise as to whether the sum would be sufficient, and nothing more than the money provided by the Bill could be spent, and nothing more could be wanted. He did not wish to go through the clauses of the Bill, because they all knew it was very thoroughly threshed out in "another place;" but there seemed to be a feeling amongst some persons on one point on which he would like to say a word—namely, that this was a Landlords' Relief Bill. He would point out that the position taken up by his hon. and gallant Friend behind him (Colonel King-Harman) did not make it appear as if the Bill were, in his hon. and gallant Friend's opinion, a very large measure of landlord relief. But even he were to concede that it was, to some extent, a Landlords' Relief Bill, let the House consider the real state of the case. When the Land Act of
    1096
    1881 was passed, it was admitted on all hands by its authors that the landlords of Ireland had been called upon to make great personal sacrifices for the public good; but they were told, by way of consolation, that though they might be called upon to make such sacrifices, they would get in exchange greater security and truer value in that which remained. He would put it to the House, had that promise been kept? Was it true, or was it not true, that the interest of the landlord in Ireland was at this day absolutely unsaleable? It was not only unsaleable; but it seemed to him that whatever small value it still possessed was being rapidly taken away. This had been called a Landlords' Relief Bill. Suppose there were nothing to be said, but that it was a Landlords' Relief Bill, would not there be some arguments in justice and equity for some such proposition as this? Was not the nation bound in equity and honour to fulfil the pledges on which the Land Act was passed? He did not wish to argue the Bill as a measure in the interests of any class, and more especially for the relief of the landlords. He put it on the ground that it would be a great advantage to the State, and a great advantage to all classes in Ireland, if the question could be brought to a happy and successful conclusion; a great advantage through them for this country too, which was asked at present to take a large share of the risk necessarily attendant upon such a measure. In support of his contention he claimed the authority of the late Prime Minister, the senior Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), and he also claimed the authority of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Hartington), and every great statesman who had legislated upon the Irish Question during recent years. Under those circumstances, he ventured to ask the House to take a friendly and frank view of the question; for if every person were to stand out on his own individual crotchet, and opposition was offered to it, the Bill could never pass. There must be some mutual concession. This was admitted to be a tentative measure; but now at this time, when there seemed to be a cessation of violence and animosities in Ireland, he called upon and appealed to the House to take advantage of it; and if he might be allowed, he

    1097
    would speak in words not only of entreaty, but in words of warning, to hon. Members of the landlord class, who might not like all that was in the Bill; he would speak, and in words of earnest appeal, to every Irishman who loved his country and desired the union of all classes in that country, to lend their aid on this occasion to the Government which had undertaken to do that of which the greatest and the severest criticism that could be uttered was that, for once, at all events, the English Government had been too generous in dealing with an Irish question.
    MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, he most earnestly congratulated the Government upon the introduction of the Bill. He would point out to hon. Members that on the 15th of May the late Prime Minister announced that his Government had determined to abandon the Land Purchase Bill, and to renew the Prevention of Crime Act in some shape or form; but he (Mr. T. A. Dickson), on the following day, told the electors of County Antrim that that Session a Land Purchase Bill would be passed, and that there would be no renewal of the Prevention of Crime Act. As an Irish Liberal Member, he was extremely glad that his prophecy had been fulfilled. He was not as sanguine as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir William Hart Dyke) as to the character of the measure. The right hon. Gentleman had said this was a final effort on the part of the Government to settle the Land Question; but he (Mr. T. A. Dickson) only regarded it as an experiment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for County Dublin (Colonel King-Harman) was not able to see any redeeming feature in the Bill. He (Mr. T. A. Dickson) thought there were three redeeming points in the measure which, if they had stood alone, were sufficient, in his opinion, to have justified its introduction. Those points were—in the first place, the Bill provided for the advance of the whole of the purchase money; in the second place, the purchase money was to be advanced at a reduced rate of interest; and, in the third place, the period of repayment was to be extended from 35 to 49 years. He confessed, however, that he was a little disappointed with the Bill in some respects, and chiefly that no reference was made to the case of the glebe tenants, of
    1098
    whom there were 5,000 or 6,000. There was no class of tenants in Ireland who had a stronger claim upon the consideration of the House. They bought their land, in 1869, at an extreme price. They had no option; because, if they refused to buy, they knew the land would be sold to land speculators. Mr. O'Brien, who valued the land for the Central Commission, valued the land as he found it. Indeed, he admitted, before a Select Committee of the House, that in his valuation he included the tenant's own improvements. Furthermore, the necessity was imposed upon the glebe tenants of finding one-third of the purchase money; and that they could only acquire from money lenders, at an enormous sacrifice. He (Mr. T. A. Dickson), therefore, maintained that the glebe tenants had every right to be generously and favourably considered in connection with this Bill. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel King-Harman) objected to the Bill because the working of it was not to be entrusted to the Landed Estates Court. He (Mr. T. A. Dickson) was glad that the Landed Estates Court was not charged with the duty of putting the Act in force, because it was a Court in which the people had no confidence; and, therefore, he thought that any such provision would be fatal to the Bill. He quite agreed with the creation of new machinery to deal solely with land purchase. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had also suggested that there should be a fining down of the rents; but the adoption of the suggestion would certainly not be satisfactory to the tenants, who were determined to be either tenants or owners. He (Mr. T. A. Dickson) quite approved of the proposal to vest the Land Commission with discretion as to whether the whole or part of the purchase money should be advanced, and would point out that, in some cases in the North of Ireland, it would be safer to advance the whole of the money than to advance half of it. In other districts he, too, was of opinion that the Bill would not be largely availed of by the tenants for some time to come; but he nevertheless thought it right, and the duty of the Government, to create proper machinery for bringing the landlord and tenant together.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, that he had put an Amendment on the Paper, with a view to move the rejection of the Bill, for the reasons given by the right hon.

    1099
    Gentleman the Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), with whom he agreed upon the subject. He would not, however, press the Amendment. At the same time, he believed there were great dangers in this Bill. The right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir William Hart Dyke) stated that the Bill had been brought in because the measures of the last 15 years had proved abortive. Now, he (Captain Aylmer) considered that the measure of 1881 was fully as liberal as any Parliament ought to grant. The failure of the Bills of the last 15 years was owing to two circumstances. In the first place, there was an extraordinary disinclination on the part of Irish tenants for some years back to become purchasers of land. He had made many inquiries, and he had come to the conclusion that they had no desire to become purchasers. The other reason for the failure was because the system, of officialism and redtapeism which prevailed in Dublin prevented purchases being carried out in any reasonable time. They had been told that this Bill had been brought forward to relieve the landlords. The Duke of Argyll, in "another place," said that, as land had been made unsaleable in Ireland, it was only just to bring in a Bill which would make it saleable. He (Captain Aylmer) himself was of opinion that the Bill would make land still more unsaleable than ever. He had the greatest wish to see peasant proprietors established in Ireland; but when they were going to make them artificially the effect would be quite the reverse of what was desired. A tenant who had to pay £100 a-year rent for land would, under the Bill, have to pay only £75 a-year for a given time. He was satisfied that when that was found to be the case the Land Courts would be unable to fix a rent of £100 a-year for that land. The effect of that would be to reduce its value. He believed the Bill was a very dangerous Bill, and that it was full of pitfalls. To make the Government the sole landlord of Ireland would be dangerous and anomalous, and put them into a position they would be sorry for. But as he felt assured that, at that late period of the Session, he would not be followed into the Lobby by more than two or three Members, he would not put the House to the trouble of a division. He thought the Government should not have inter-
    1100
    terfered directly with the land, but should have endeavoured to have dealt with the question through the Land Act.
    SIR THOMAS M'CLUREsaid, he cordially supported the Bill as a wellmeant effort to remedy the present deadlock in the land market. It was most desirable to pass a measure to facilitate the purchase of their holdings by occupiers, which had been so long promised. He would remind the House that great expectations had been founded in Ireland concerning this measure, and it would be impossible to estimate the disappointment that would follow its rejection by Parliament. The Bill was extremely liberal in its provisions. It afforded an easy means of enabling the landlord to sell who wished to do so, and the tenant to buy his property; while it brought to bear no compulsion on either party. He therefore trusted the Bill would not meet with serious opposition from any part of the House. Its principles had been advocated in Ulster by gentlemen representing both political Parties, not only on local grounds, but for high Imperial reasons. He saw there were various Amendments to be moved when the Bill got into Committee; but he would express the hope that the action of hon. Members in whose names those Amendments stood would not be allowed to delay or endanger the Bill.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he did not entertain any very sanguine expectations of the success of the measure; but he believed it to be an honest endeavour to meet a difficulty, and he hoped it might succeed. He thought the sum of money proposed to be allocated to the purpose was sufficient. It was an experiment, and if it succeeded Parliament would be willing to increase the sum. He objected to its being supposed that this was a landlords' Bill. For the first time, he believed, in the legislation of this country, it was suggested that the seller should become security for the payment of the purchase money by the buyer. ["No, no!"] Well, he knew of no Act in which that principle was already embodied. Was it to be supposed that the tenant, who was purchasing a farm for £200, would provide the fifth part of the money, which was to remain in the hands of the Land Commissioners for 10 or 15 years? Could anyone believe that the tenant would provide the £40? Or was it to be supposed that a

    1101
    third party would come in between landlord and tenant and advance the money? Therefore, the security must come from the landlord. If it did not come from him, then from whom else could it come? And if the security was to be given by the landlords, what chance was there of the Bill being largely availed of? He was not at all surprised that those who held property in Ireland and England should be desirous to get rid of the Irish property. Parliament had recently inaugurated such legislation towards landed property in Ireland, and so great a depreciation in its value had resulted in consequence, that those landowners could not but think that at some future time Parliament would go still further. The landlords of Ireland might be divided into three classes. One class was nearly hopelessly insolvent, and the Bill could do no good to them. There was a second class, who were mortgaged heavily, but not too deeply. But they were mortgaged sufficiently deeply as, with the assistance of the late legislation, to put them in a very precarious position, and leave them a very small margin to live upon. Unless these men got a fair price for their land they could not live. The third class, who would avail themselves of the Bill, would be comparatively small in number. The position of Irish landlords for many years past had been anything but agreeable. They had been deprived of their former position, and now they saw Parliament year by year reducing the amount of their rent. It had been said that it was difficult to explain why land was unsaleable in Ireland. To him the explanation was very simple. It was because of the constant, persistent, and determined agitation kept up by hon. Gentlemen opposite below the Opposition Gangway. No matter what Act was passed embodying concessions, they immediately began agitating for a further one. They were now apparently sitting in a most demure, lamb-like attitude; but when this Bill was passed they would shortly disperse themselves over Ireland and use language not at all suited to the very quiet position they now assumed against those robbers, rascals, and murderers, the landowners. They would, no doubt, be yet heard to say to those who came to hear them—"What do you think Parliament has done? Parliament has given the landlords the
    1102
    full value of their land. Will you stand that?" Of course, the answer would be "No, no!" And they would also be asked not to be such fools as to give any money to the landlords, when they might get all they wanted and reach their desired end by following the lead of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). They would be asked, why put money in the hands of those rascally landlords? Now, what was this proposal? He would examine it briefly. It was, he believed, in effect, that, by purchasing under the Act, every tenant should not only get his own holding, but also a slice of somebody else's grass land. The House must know that on many estates in Ireland there were tenants who had large farms, chiefly grass lands, and these were to be found in Meath, Mayo, and Galway. These large tenants, as he understood it, would, under the operation of the Act, be ousted, and slices of these large holdings would be given to the small tenants. If the House of Commons sanctioned anything like that, he could assure them that there would be much indignation in Ireland. He should be extremely glad to see the Bill succeed; but he hoped that what had been said by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) and other hon. Members would be considered by the Government, and that was to afford some relief to those glebe tenants who came in and purchased under the Act of 1869. Those tenants purchased at an extremely high rate—24 or 25 years' purchase—those terms having been made by the officials of the Church Commissioners, who went round and valued, and made the tenants l>ay through the nose for it. These glebe tenants were bound under very strict terms, and if they failed at the end of a half-year to pay their instalments they received notice that legal proceedings would be taken against them. He believed that many of them had borrowed, not only the fourth part of the purchase money which they originally paid down, but had also been obliged to borrow since to pay up their instalments. They were, therefore, heavily charged with debt, and the future in store for them was a very gloomy one indeed. The position of those tenants would be a most anomalous one if they were not included in the Bill, for they would be shut out from the benefits of recent legislation and become so many

    1103
    pariahs, so to say. Later on in Committee he (Mr. Macartney), if no one else did, would make a proposal respecting these tenants, which he hoped the Government would accept, as it would bring these glebe tenants under the Bill.
    MR. PARNELL: I am very glad to see that the opposition of the Irish landlords, as represented by the hon. and gallant Member for the County Dublin (Colonel King-Harman) and the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Captain Aylmer), is not a real or sincere one, and that it has come to an end; because I think it would have been a misfortune if this Bill, subject to some Amendments, were not to be passed into law this Session. There seems to be a dispute as to whether the Bill is more in favour of the landlords or of the tenants; and I am bound to say that the action of hon. Gentlemen who put down Amendments to the Bill, and then retreat from those Amendments, shows that, in their opinion, they consider the measure is likely to be more in favour of the landlords than of the tenants. However, I do not propose myself to express any opinion upon that point, and will only Bay that the Bill appears to me to offer facilities to the landlord who is not able to sell his land and who desires to do so, to find a purchaser for it; and it also appears to me to offer facilities to a tenant who is desirous of buying his land to purchase it if he wishes to do so. For the rest I will only say that, judging by public indications and appearances, the Irish landowners are looking, more than the Irish tenants, for help from a measure of this kind; and I cannot help thinking that their attitude is a wise one, and that if they had adopted this attitude some years ago, however much worse it might have been for the tenants, it certainly would not have been any the worse for themselves. Taking the whole case as it stands, looking at the Bill merely as experimental, involving only the expenditure of a comparatively small sum of money—£5,000,000 sterling—I cannot see that very much mischief can be done, either to Irish landlords or to Irish tenants, by its passage; whereas, on the other hand, some knowledge may come to us, from the experience derived in its working, which may tempt all parties interested in the question—the tenants, the Government, and the land-
    1104
    owners—to go further in the future, and perhaps to arrive at a final solution of this very important and difficult Land Question in Ireland. With regard to the details of the Bill to which I object, I would simply say this—that I cannot understand why the Government desire to take from us the only public fund we have left in Ireland, the only money that we have left for any purpose whatever, for the purpose of providing an additional security to those securities which already exist in abundance. If you give the Land Commission, the body which is to be entrusted, practically speaking, with lending the money to those desirous of purchasing, and, therefore, practically speaking, entrusted with the duty of preventing too high a price from being given; if you give to them the Church Fund to fall back upon as an extra security, the inevitable tendency will be to allow higher prices to be paid for farms than prudence would dictate—the Land Commission will, under those circumstances, look less closely into the security and into its nature. They will say that, as regards that portion of the purchase money, they have an absolutely unimpeachable security to fall back upon; and the necessary consequence will be that the Land Commission will be inclined to give a higher price, or, rather, allow a higher price to be given to the landowner than the circumstances of the time and other matters would prudently permit. The same thing applies to the retention of one-fifth of the purchase money. If that provision be left in the Bill, it will inevitably form a bone of contention between the tenant and the landlord. There will be a tendency, undoubtedly, upon the part of the tenants to look upon that one-fifth as a portion which ought to be discharged by the landlord and not by the tenant; there will be the tendency on their part to borrow on the land more than it is entitled to by that operation, and to turn over to the landowner the loss involved to that extent. I think it would be far better for the Government to place the Land Commission in the position of having to scrutinize narrowly the security that may be offered them, and the price that will have to be paid, with the understanding, on the part of the tenants, that the price they now say they are willing to give for their holdings, and the annual instalments neces-

    1105
    sitated by that price, will be strictly demanded from them in the future. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney), who last spoke, said that many of us do not desire the landowners to get anything at all for their land. [Mr. MACARTNEY: Hear, hear!] I will tell the hon. Gentleman what I desire in reference to this matter. I desire that the tenants should not pay anything more than they are perfectly certain to be able to continue the payment of to the State as annual instalments hereafter; and I think that tenants purchasing in these times, when there is so great a depreciation in the price of agricultural produce, that the only remaining articles of produce, butter and cattle, have fallen in value 50 per cent within the last 12 months, when we see that the bottom of the fall has not apparently been reached, and that the downward process is still continuing—I say, in the interests of public honour and morality, in the interests of the State and of the taxpayers of this country, as well as in the interests of the tenants themselves, we should warn them not to incur liabilities which they may be unable hereafter to fulfil. Let them pay, by all means, a fair price for their holdings; but let them not be tempted to undertake annual payments which, from the depreciation in the price of farm produce, it may be absolutely impossible for them to pay. That is the view that I take of this question of purchase. I have always held, since making my entry into public life, that it is eminently desirable that the Irish Land Question should be settled permanently upon the basis of an occupying ownership. My mind has not at all been altered by the passage of the Land Act of 1881. I do not think that the Irish tenants are to be blamed for failing to purchase their holdings. Up to the present moment they have been occupied in getting their rents fixed in the Land Court; and immediately after the rents have been fixed has come this great depression in the prices of agricultural produce, which will undoubtedly make it exceedingly difficult for many of the tenants, if the depression remains permanent, to pay the judicial rents. Therefore there is further need of caution and deliberation on their part before they purchase and involve the State in their misfortunes. At present it is the Irish
    1106
    landlords and the Irish tenants who have to face this question of agricultural depression; and if you leave in the Bill inducements, such as the security of the Church Funds, or the retention of one-fifth, you inevitably offer inducements to all parties to agree to the paying of too high a figure for the land; and if the holdings are purchased at too high a price the difficulties of the tenant will be proportionately increased, and that may be the result of offering the further guarantee. As this is to be an experimental measure only tentatively dealing with the question, and as possibly larger, much larger, measures may hereafter spring out of it, if it succeeds, I am obliged to feel the greatest anxiety that, whatever is done under this Bill, if it become an Act, should be done well, and that no loss should result to the public from the expenditure of these millions of money. It is evident, if the Land Question is to be settled on the basis of purchase, the advance by the State will have to be very large; and it would be a very poor encouragement for the English taxpayers and Irish farmers if any of the provisions of the Bill were, under the surrounding circumstances in Ireland, to tempt the latter to pay an impossible price for their holdings, a price at which they would not be able to keep up the annual instalments hereafter; and I hope, therefore, there will be no attempt on the part of the Land Judges to bolster up the value of land artificially, or to refuse fair and reasonable offers from the tenants of those encumbered estates in Ireland with regard to the purchase of their holdings. I think the Irish tenants should be treated, at least, as reasonably in this matter as the land jobbers were in the bad times of 1847 and 1848. There was then no attempt on the part of the Land Judges artificially to bolster up the price of land, and estates were put up in the open market, and knocked down to the highest bidder. I think that should be to some extent the case on the present occasion. If that principle be adopted now, and tenants are tempted to come forward, I have no doubt that the deadlock in the land market will soon be terminated, and such prices will be given by the tenants for their holdings as will be fair, and as will render it possible that they will have a reasonable hope of being able to pay hereafter

    1107
    the instalments fixed upon. Another matter was mentioned in the course of this discussion which I should like to allude to. It is the important question of the glebe tenants. Appeals have been made by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House that the purchasers under the Church Act, who bought their holdings at a much higher rate than those contemplated by this Bill, should be put in the same position as purchasers under this Bill. Now, these purchasers were divided into two classes—there were persons who came forward and bought land over the heads of the tenants in the open market, and who were assisted by the funds of the State to do so, and there were those bonâ fide tenants who purchased their own holdings. In respect of the first class of persons, I do not see how you can fairly ask that a Bill, which is intended to enable tenants to become the owners of their holdings on more reasonable terms, should be so stretched in its provisions so as to enable land speculators, admittedly men who bought land in the open market as an investment and speculation, to obtain better terms than those bargained for. On the other hand, I admit I should be very glad if the Government could see their way to give bonâ, fide occupying tenants who purchased under the provisions of the Irish Church Act the same terms that this Bill proposes to give. These tenants undoubtedly bought at a very high price—occupying tenants bought, I think, at an average of two years' higher purchase than the ordinary purchaser gave for the same class of land at the time. I think that ordinary purchasers who were not tenants bought on an average of 22 or 22½ years' purchase, and I think the occupying tenants were obliged to pay 23½ or 24 years' purchase. In that way they paid a higher price, and their annual instalments were higher. However, I would certainly not reduce in any way the terms they have covenanted to give; but I would give them the advantages of this Bill, so far as the terms of repayment go and the interest. In this way you could gradually lighten the very heavy burden which they are suffering from. From 24 and 23½ years' purchase a lower price has ensued, which has gone down to 20 years' purchase. I do not think, therefore, you ought to reduce the amount of purchase money
    1108
    which they consented to give, because the fund that you gave it to is a public one. But neither the Imperial Exchequer nor the Church Fund need suffer in the slightest degree by the interest on the purchase money being reduced, as it may be, by an arrangement between the Treasury and the Church Commissioners, to enable the Church Commissioners to borrow at the lower rate provided for in this Bill. I am glad that there has been no political acrimony excited by the introduction of the measure. I am also glad to see that the Conservative Party have so far been educated on the Land Question as—I will not say to settle it on the lines of the Land League, because this very small measure of £5,000,000 sterling cannot be considered in any sense as even an attempt to settle the Land Question—I would, however, remind the House that the much-abused Land League was formed first to do away with rack rents and prevent landlord oppression and eviction; and, secondly, to enable every occupying tenant to become the owner of his holding upon fair terms, objects for which no abuse or ridicule was thought to be too strong at the time, but which, I am glad to say, now appear to be becoming rapidly absorbed into the political creed of the Conservative Party. I trust that this Bill, so far as it goes and when amended, may enable the tenants to become the owners of their holdings.
    MR. CLARE READsaid that, as an English county Member, he must excuse himself for speaking on the subject of the Bill, upon the ground that for 15 years he had not uttered a word in that House on the Irish Land Question. When the Land Bill of 1870 was introduced, he endeavoured to prove that, instead of extending the Ulster tenant right to the whole of Ireland, they ought to go in at once for State-aided peasant proprietorship. That he was right at that time was evident from the fact that after experiencing the working of the Acts of 1870 and 1881, they had found it would be much better that there should be a solid landed proprietorship, and that those who cultivated should own the land, rather than there should be a sort of bastard ownership which had existed during the last 15 years. At the same time, unless those who purchased their holdings showed a

    1109
    greater amount of assiduity and hard work than he thought was generally practised by some of the small tenants of Ireland, he feared that they would not succeed as well as the House desired. There could not be a worse system than prevailed in Ireland at present, as far as concerned the interests of both landlord and tenant. Irish tenants, with the exception of those who first acquired the tenant right, were really under two rents; for the interest of the money locked up in the purchase of the tenant right was a second rent paid by the tenant from which he could not escape, and the liability passed from one occupier to another. The hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney) had told them that, in some instances, the tenant right was worth more than the fee simple. There were three interests involved in the cultivation of land, although they might all exist, in some instances, in the same person. There was the man who supplied the dead capital, the man who supplied the working capital, and the man who did the labour. All three might be rolled into one—the peasant proprietor—but still they must co-exist. However well he might cultivate the land, the only way in which a small farmer, whether owner or occupier, could succeed, was to do the work of two agricultural labourers and live at the expense of one. In that case, if the Irish peasant could fulfil those conditions, the Bill might be a success. There was much point in the remarks of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) with respect to a probable fall in prices. The hon. Member had said that, in the last few few months, stock had fallen 50 per cent. He (Mr. Clare Read) was not aware of any such fall in England, though prices had undoubtedly gone down. But in this there lay a great danger, and in a few years the purchasing tenants might find themselves as owners in a much worse condition than their tenant neighbours. He believed the Bill was the only possible corollary to the two Irish Land Acts; but he could not endorse its principle, nor could he give it support upon any ground of political economy; but as to its expediency there could be no doubt. Therefore, under the present circumstances, he hoped it would become law as speedily as possible, although it would add another page to our history,
    1110
    whereby the State would become, in a more real sense than ever, the father of the people.
    MR. THOMASSONsaid, that he shared in the anxiety of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) lest tenants under this Bill should engage to pay too high rents for the next 49 years. Even if the freehold were bought at 20 years' purchase, the tenant would pay less than his present rent by way of instalments, and in about 10 years the State would lose the security of one-fifth the price deposited at the time of the purchase. Then, about the same period, would come the revision of rents, as the 15 years' term of judicial rent would then be on the point of expiration. If rents should then be still further reduced, serious discontent would arise among the purchasers under the present Bill, for the tenants who took advantage of it, and bound themselves for 49 years to pay a certain rent to the State, might find themselves in a very much worse position than those of their neighbours who might have their rents considerably reduced. That being the case, there would be great danger that the State would not receive the rents agreed upon, so that the loss would fall upon the British taxpayers. ["Oh, oh!"] As an English Member, he was entitled to take into consideration the possible effect of the Bill upon the British taxpayers. The right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach; had hinted at the possibility of an increase of the duty on tea; and it was possible that every house holder in the town he (Mr. Thomasson) represented, and in the Kingdom also, might hereafter find that he had to pay an increased duty upon that article in order to make up the loss to the Exchequer from the failure of Irish tenants to perform their contracts. Many of these householders were women, who were unrepresented, but whose interests the House ought not the less to consider. The State was running a great risk in this Bill. It was buying a rent charge of 3⅛ per cent, while running the risk that in 10 years' time the rents on which it was based would not be paid. He was afraid that the worst of such a state of things would be that the idle and thrift less among the tenants would be benefited at the expense of the more industrious and of the English taxpayer, and that

    1111
    the measure would produce discontent in Ireland. He would much rather that the rents of the industrious tenants who had invested their money in their farms should be reduced by a revision of the Healy Clause of the Land Act than that the question should be dealt with as was proposed under this Bill. It had been frequently remarked that the Bill was merely an experimental, and not a final one; but, in his opinion, there had been more than enough of experiments of this nature, and he was afraid that considerable danger might result from the measure. For instance, if it were largely taken advantage of, the State would become the landlord of a large part of Ireland, which was a most undesirable position for the State to be in, as it would have to exact the rents to the uttermost farthing in justice to the British taxpayer, which would increase the difficulties, already great, of governing the country. It would, in his opinion, be wiser not to try any further experiments in this direction, but to have postponed the consideration of a measure dealing with such large, important, and complicated interests, leaving the question to be dealt with by the new Parliament if it was considered that the present Parliament had not solved it satisfactorily.
    SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, he rose to express a hope that whoever concluded the debate on the part of the Government would give the House some assurance that those landowners who purchased their land for residential and not for speculative purposes under the provisions of the Act of 1870, and also the purchasers of glebe lands, would be favourably considered under the Bill. He thought, however, that, in respect to those persons, the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was quite right in drawing a line of distinction between those who bought land for speculation and tenants who bonâ fide purchased their holdings. The latter, it seemed to him (Sir Hervey Bruce), deserved the same treatment as if they had purchased now. He was glad that the Bill had been introduced by the present Government; for, although he did not think it by any means a perfect Bill, or one which would at once solve the problem of the Irish Land Question, still it was the thin edge of the wedge, which might be driven home until better
    1112
    relations were established between landlords and tenants in Ireland. Indeed, he thought that if the sentiments and opinions contained in the speech of the hon. Member for the City of Cork were carried out the Bill might be the beginning of better days for Ireland, by doing much to place the Land Question in that country upon a more satisfactory footing.
    MR. FINDLATERsaid, he most heartily approved of the Bill, which, in his opinion, would confer a great boon upon the people of Ireland. Its provisions were good, and with some slight but necessary Amendments it might be made a good working measure. In the belief that it would be a boon to both parties, he desired to see it pass as soon as possible; and, so far as he was concerned, he would aid its passage by making it as perfect as possible. With that object he should make several suggestions to the Government when the Bill reached the Committee stage.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he hoped that before the debate closed Her Majesty's Government would announce their intention of standing by their proposal to reserve one-fifth of the purchase money. After the best consideration he could give to the subject, he did not think the Government would be justified, considering their duty to the country, in giving up the security constituted by the retention of that money. It must be remembered that the terms offered by the Government in this Bill were of perfectly unexampled liberality. No company or association of capitalists in the City of London would advance money on such terms. By the Bill money was to be advanced for the purchasers under it at 4 per cent, which was not merely interest, but sinking fund; whereas he ventured to assert, with great confidence, that no one would lend money on an Irish security under 5 per cent for interest alone. That being so, the Government were entitled to have every possible security for the repayment of their advances; nay, more, they were bound to demand it, for they were Trustees of the public, whose interest they were bound to protect. Their duty involved the exaction of a proper guarantee for their advances. What, then, was the guarantee which the Bill provided? It was simply the retention of a certain amount of the purchase money. During the 10 years the

    1113
    portion of the purchase money thus retained could be assigned, charged, or otherwise made available as a security by the person to whom it belonged. He did not think that an unfair arrangement; and, in the interest of the taxpayer, he thought it ought to be maintained. He would again repeat the hope that before the debate closed they would have some assurance from the Government, and it would be maintained. Then as to mortgages, which were one of the difficulties he saw in the working of the measure, the Government might desire to purchase certain portions of a mortgaged estate. If they paid the money to the landlord, the estate would not thereby be discharged from the mortgage. The Government would have to consider how that was to be met, and he thought they would have to place themselves in such cases in the position of the mortgagee, by paying off the mortgage and taking an assignment of it. He wished every success to the measure; but he was not very sanguine as to the results that would flow from it. He hoped it would lead to a settlement of the Land Question in Ireland; but he was afraid that it would only increase the demands of the tenants, to whom so much had been given. Ten years hence, when rents were revised, as they were to be under the Land Act of the late Government, they might be reduced; and then the tenants who had purchased under that Bill on the basis of the existing rents might think that they had made a bad bargain, and had paid too much, and in that case there might be a revival of irritation and discontent. That, however, to a great extent, was a matter of speculation, and, at all events, of opinion. What he confessed did seem to him certain was that the Government were bound by their duty to the taxpayer of this country to take every precaution that no loss to him should accrue from the present measure.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, he thought the Government might feel satisfied with the almost unanimous approval with which the Bill had been received by Irish Members on both sides of the House; and, so far as the criticism which had been passed upon it was concerned, it would encourage them to press the Bill on with as much expedition as possible. He thought the discussion
    1114
    had given the Government some assistance in carrying out their Bill. It was not his intention to enter into the details; but he wished to state what would be probably the views entertained by the Government of the suggestions which had been made. The Bill dealt with the question from two points of view. It dealt first with the machinery by which it was expected that the tenant might be able to secure the fee simple of his holding; and, in the second place, with the means by which he could procure the purchase money. As to the first point—the machinery—that was to say, the tribunal to which the carrying out of the measure was to be entrusted—he could not agree with his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman) that it would be wise to place the duty on the old Landed Estates Court. He admitted that it was a Court fully competent to deal with this question; but without, in any way, speaking to its disparagement, he could not help feeling that the measure would not be carried out as well, if left to that Court, as if it were entrusted to the Special Commissioners who would be appointed under the Bill. The Judges and officers of the Landed Estates Court were in the habit of trying large cases; and it was not to be expected that they, who were mainly engaged in dealing with large estates, would be able to descend and adjudicate upon matters connected with the transfer of the small holdings between landlords and tenants. Then, if the Government left it in the hands of the Land Commissioners in Ireland, he did not think the Bill would be carried out very vigorously; because they had already in hand more work than they would be able to do in an effective way in the ordinary course of their duties. They were appointed originally to fix the rent of land between the landlord and the tenant; and they had large arrears of work on hand, which they were not likely to get rid of for a long time to come. Under all those circumstances, the Government thought it best to appoint two Commissioners, to form a special tribunal for carrying out this measure. Objection had been taken because their names had not been published to the House. Before the second reading of a Bill was surely not the time to announce the names of the gentlemen whose appoint-

    1115
    ment depended solely upon the passing of that Bill. Before a position of this kind could be accepted by a gentleman with credit to himself, he must have an assurance that the Government were in earnest and would pass the Bill. Under the Land Act of 1881, the names of the Commissioners were not announced until after a later stage than that at which he hoped to mention the names of the two gentlemen who would be selected under the Bill. As the Government were anxious that the Bill should be efficiently carried out, the House could rest assured that they would only appoint gentlemen who were fully qualified to discharge their duties zealously and with ability, and who would receive and retain the confidence of the public and of the Executive. There was a provision of the Bill which had not been referred to, and which he considered a very valuable one. The Executive had taken power to transfer some of the officers from the Landed Estates Court to the Land Commission, for the purpose of carrying out the investigation of titles. These officials would bring a large amount of accumulated knowledge to the work. As to the provision which the Bill made for enabling the tenant to purchase, reference had been made to the guarantee as a condition precedent to the purchase money being advanced. It was obvious that the State ought to be in a position, when enabling tenants to purchase their holdings, to take care that it should be protected from loss, especially when it was advancing so much as £5,000,000. It would be a rash and imprudent thing to ask that the advance should be made, unless there was some guarantee that the State should not suffer. They had made two provisions in this regard; one was that the vendor should allow a part of the money to remain in the hands of the Commissioners. But this would only remain till such time as the purchaser had paid instalments equal to the amount left by the vendor. The tenant's interest would then become the guarantee. When they asked that this one-fifth was to be retained, they did not ask that it should be retained without making some return to the landlord or the vendor. He would be paid at the rate of 3 per cent, and at the same time he would not be entirely deprived of the use of his capital; for if the country was prosperous,
    1116
    and the tenant paid up his instalments punctually, the landlord could raise money on the security of that fifth which had been retained; so that, while it was being retained by the State as a security, he would be receiving an advantage from it, and would be enjoying it. With reference to the next guarantee, the Church Surplus Fund, there had been some adverse criticism. The sum now vested in the Church Temporalities Commission amounted to something between £600,000 and £700,000. He hoped it would not be necessary to resort to that at all, and that this fund would still remain for such National purposes as Parliament might be disposed to apply it to. Should it, unfortunately, be necessary to use it, it seemed to him, and to the Government as well, that it was a most natural thing to apply this National Irish Fund to an Irish object when required. Adverse criticism came principally from his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dublin County, who had declared that the Bill was likely to be abortive, or a "sham," as he described it; but there was one answer to his criticism about the £5,000,000. They must remember that they were now at the end of a Parliament, and on the eve of a General Election, and they would shortly have a Parliament elected by different constituencies to those which had hitherto elected Members, and it would not be desirable to apply a larger amount of State funds than was likely to be absorbed in the interim. If the Bill was a success, he believed there would be no difficulty in getting further funds. He wished to make one other remark, and that had reference to the tenants who had already purchased under the Acts of 1870 and 1881, also the glebe tenants who purchased under the Church Act of 1869. He assured hon. Members that this matter had received the consideration of the Government; but the more they considered it the greater were the difficulties which confronted them. It would always be an argument against doing anything to say that there was a certain number of others who had purchased in antecedent years under other circumstances. The tenants who purchased under the Acts he had referred to paid their purchase money under the law as it existed. It would be wholly impossible for the Government to reduce

    1117
    the amounts paid by those tenants, and he thought there would be the greatest difficulty in reducing the interest. No doubt, however, something might be done, and it was a matter which would continue to receive the earnest attention of the Government. It had been paid by some that this was a landlords' Bill, and by others that it was a tenants' Bill. It appeared to him that the great recommendation of the Bill was that it was neither a landlords' Bill nor a tenants' Bill, but that it was a Bill from which both landlords and tenants might derive certain advantages if they availed themselves of it. He wished to point out, what had been already pointed out by the hon. Members for County Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) and for Monaghan (Mr. Findlater), that although this Bill might not be perfect in every part, yet if the House approved the principle the best way to allow the principle to be carried out was to permit the Bill to pass a second reading, and to make such Amendments as were necessary in Committee. A Bill might be killed either by active opposition or by protracted discussion; but he hoped that hon. Members would see in this Bill the germ of an earnest effort to do something for Ireland, and would therefore withdraw their opposition in order that its merits might be tested, and that, therefore, they would permit the Bill to pass. As he had been permitted to say so much, he might, perhaps, add a hope that as the House had now spent a very considerable time in discussing the principle of the measure, and as the Government intended to put down the next stage for an early day, hon. Members would now allow the discussion to cease, and the second reading of the Bill to be taken.
    MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I wish to congratulate the House on the introduction of this Bill, and I do so as representing a constituency having a large Irish population, in whom I take a very keen interest. The Bill is a generous Bill, and in that respect it is politic, for all legislation dealing with Ireland, in order to be politic, ought to be generous. The Bill, in my opinion, also contains within itself the seeds of something like a final settlement of the Irish difficulty as regards the Land Question. I especially congratulate the House upon the very friendly way in which the Bill has been
    1118
    received by all sections of opinion, and especially by the section which is led by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). I do not think we can too highly congratulate, both ourselves and the country at large, upon the great change in the tone of Irish opinion in this House. It is a matter for very hearty congratulation that we have at last reached a method of speaking about Irish questions which is a great deal more rational than what has been the custom for many years past. I believe, myself, that if this Bill is heartily accepted by the Members of the Party who follow the lead of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, it will pave the way, at no distant date, for a very wide extension of its terms. It, no doubt, is an experiment; but that experiment may be developed to a very large degree, and may become the means of settling the controversy about the land in Ireland. I wish to say how entirely I approve of the measure, and how heartily, speaking from the Liberal side of the House, I wish it God-speed. I think it is a thoroughly wise measure. It has already produced excellent effects on public opinion, and I join with all who have discussed this subject in hoping and trusting that it will turn out to be a solution of one of the greatest—if not the very greatest—of Irish difficulties.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that if the Bill were intended to be the beginning of the general purchase of their holdings by tenants, it was unreasonable to suppose that the Church Surplus would offer any security for the payment. It might be a valuable security if the purchases were not to exceed £5,000,000; but it would be of no value if the Bill were extended beyond that. He considered the Bill carried out the principles of the National League, therefore he was very anxious that it should succeed; but its success depended not so much upon what was in the Bill as upon its administration. He also thought that what the Government ought to do was to regard the measure as an experiment, a commencement with the question of Land Purchase, and should give the Commissioners instructions that they must, if possible, conduct the business in such a way as to deal with the whole of this £5,000,000 of property within the next three months after the Bill had become law. If the Commissioners waited till the landlords

    1119
    could screw an extravagant price from their tenants no business would be done. He believed that many tenants wished to buy their holdings; but they wanted to buy as cheap as they could. He thought that the first transactions ought to take place at the present price, and a beginning might be made by the new Commissioners buying properties which had been some time in the Landed Estates Court.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Friday.

  FEDERAL COUNCIL OF AUSTRALASIA BILL [Lords].
  (Secretary Colonel Stanley.)
  FEDERAL COUNCIL OF AUSTRALASIA BILL [Lords].

    [BILL 165.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Secretary Colonel Stanley.)
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that he was very much inclined to think that the people who called themselves the Colonists were but a very small number of persons at either end of the telegraph wire leading to Australia, and he had seen papers which led him very greatly to doubt if the Australian Colonists really wanted this Bill. If the Australian Colonies saw their way to any complete scheme of federation he wished them God-speed. He knew, however, that New South Wales and New Zealand had both declared their dislike to the Bill and their intention not to accept it; and it was, therefore, very doubtful whether it was worth while for Her Majesty's Government to proceed with the measure. It was for that reason that he had blocked it. Personally, he did not object to the Bill, with one important exception, and he should be glad to see the Australian Colonies and Her Majesty's Government settle the matter between them. But he decidedly objected to that clause in the Bill which enabled the Australasian Colonies to deal with what was called the relations of Australia to the Islands of the Pacific. He did not know what was meant by that expression; but he had very grave doubts whether it was prudent to put such a provision in the Bill. Dealing with the question of New Guinea and the disputes which had occurred with
    1120
    regard to the Islands of the Pacific, he must be allowed to express the opinion that it would be imprudent to give to Australia, so long as it remained under the British flag, the power to assume protection over the Natives of the Islands of the Pacific. The alienation between this country and Germany took place with reference to the excessive pretensions of Queensland to deal with one of the Pacific Islands. He believed that the Australians would be much better off if they followed the example of the American Colonies, and developed their own territories, and did all that it was possible for them to do in that direction, without seeking foreign possessions, and endeavouring to entangle themselves in foreign complications.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he much regretted that a Bill of that importance should have been brought before the notice of the House on such scanty information, and when hon. Members were in possession of so little information as to the sentiments of the Colonies themselves. It was true that a certain number of Parliamentary Papers had been presented; but the information which they contained was, he thought, hardly sufficient to enable the House to appreciate the whole bearings of the question, and to understand what were the feelings with which the proposals had been received in the Colonies during the last few months. He thought it would have been valuable to the House if the Colonial Office had prepared a sort of explanatory Memorandum giving a view of the whole matter and a justification of the whole Bill. When the House of Commons was asked to undertake a function so large as that of drawing up a Constitution for communities already great, and which were likely to become infinitely greater in the future, it ought to approach a task of that kind with a due sense of responsibility and on accurate information and knowledge. He thought also there was no evidence to show that this Bill, or draft Constitution, had really been satisfactorily discussed and considered in the Colonies themselves. It appeared to have emanated in the first instance from a small coterie or conclave of Prime Ministers, and the House had nothing to show them that the best minds of our Colonies had been properly brought to bear in the consideration of the subject. The Bill would have come

    1121
    before the House with greater authority if it had reason to believe that proper pains had been bestowed upon it, and that proper efforts had been made to obtain full publicity and discussion for it in the Australian Colonies themselves. He thought that the circumstances he had mentioned made the position of the Imperial Parliament not quite a satisfactory one in dealing with this matter. In considering the character of the Bill, and its liability to a certain line of criticism, he said it was clear that it was a very scanty, fragmentary, and imperfect sketch of a Federal Constitution. Looking even at that important clause which provided that any one Colony could withdraw from the federation, he said if the House were free to debate the subject at length a great deal of time might be spent over the consideration of this clause alone; because a federation, which offered to any member of it the right to withdraw as soon as its wishes were not gratified, was clearly a federation of the feeblest and most transitory kind. He was content, however, that they should pass the Bill in the form in which the Colonial authorities had asked us to do so, and as a matter of favour to them; but the responsibility for its formation would substantially rest more with them than with us. He looked with more hope to the establishment of closer relations between the Executive authority here and the Colonies than to a federation among the Colonies themselves. The real value of this Constitution seemed to him to be in the provision which it made for the introduction of uniform legislation among the different Colonies, and particularly for the introduction of a uniform system of legal process and of private law in those matters in which the inhabitants of different Colonies were most likely to come into relation with one another. The experience of the United States, which was the great source of experience in these matters, showed how much advantage there was in having—how much might be lost by not having—a uniform system of legislation on certain subjects of common interest. It would be, for instance, of immense advantage for the United States to have a uniform Law of Marriage and Divorce. It was one of the great difficulties which legal reformers had to deal with in America; and he
    1122
    was glad to see that the Federal Council, under this Bill, had power to legislate on these subjects, on quarantine, on bills of exchange, and other such matters. As regarded the utility of the Federal Legislature, if he might so call it, for the purpose of introducing a uniform system of private law, he thought it would be very desirable to increase the size of the Council, for he thought, as at present devised, it was too small for the adequate discussion of the subjects with which it would have to deal. But in that, as in other respects, he looked upon the Bill more as a first sketch than as a complete Constitution; and he could not help believing that further legislation would be required, and that the outline contained in that measure would have hereafter to be filled up and developed in various particulars.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 15 (Matters subject to legislative authority of Council).
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he wished, after the word "copyright," in line 41, to have the word "bankruptcy" inserted. It was true that unless the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Stanley) were favourable to this Amendment it would not be of use for him to propose it; but he wished to point out that bankruptcy was a subject upon which, of all others, it was desirable that there should be uniformity of legislation as between the different States. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not object to this proposal, he would suggest to him that the word "bankruptcy" might be properly included in the clause.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 41, after the word "copyright," to insert the word "bankruptcy."—(Mr. Bryce.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'bankruptcy' be there inserted."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel STANLEY)said, he thought he could undertake that the attention of the Federal Council should be directed to the question raised by the Amendment of the hon. Member for

    1123
    the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce); but he would venture to ask the hon. Member not to press the Amendment. If the hon. Member would look to Clause 4 he would find that there was power to refer to the Council any matter of general interest, and that, therefore, the subject of the Amendment was already within the scope of the Bill.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he admitted that it was within the scope of the Bill. He thought it desirable, however, to emphasize the particular subject of bankruptcy for the reason he had given; but after the expression of opinion on the part of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, he had no objection, with the permission of the Committee, to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.
    Clause 18 (Power to Her Majesty to disallow Act to which Governor has assented in Her Majesty's name).
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he had placed on the Paper an Amendment which was intended to make the clause clearer in respect of acts done between the date of assent and the time of annulment. He apprehended that upon a strict legal construction of the clause a Court of Law would hold that an act done between the date of giving assent and the date of annulment would be protected. Subject to the opinion of the hon. and learned Solicitor General he thought that would be so; but he also thought it would be worth while to make the matter quite clear, so that acts done after assent given by the Colonial Government would be certain of being protected. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies did not object, he should like to have the words of his Amendment introduced into the clause.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 4, at end, add—"But without prejudice to any act done or right acquired between the date of such assent and the day of such signification of annulment."—(Mr. Bryce.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Colonel STANLEY)said, he regretted very much to have to ask the hon. Member (Mr. Bryce) not to press this Amendment. He
    1124
    thought it would be premature to deal with the question; and he was afraid, if these words were to be put into the Act, that it might lead to the presumption that the rule hitherto existing had been disturbed. He understood that the Amendment might draw a distinction between the custom prevailing in one Colony and the customs prevailing in others. For that reason, and because he thought the Acts in question would be protected by the clause as it stood, he asked the hon. Member not to press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 19 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 29 (Power to determine operation of Act in any Colony).
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Colonel STANLEY)said, he regretted that the Amendment he was about to ask the Committee to assent to was not upon the Notice Paper. He understood that his Predecessor in Office had given a promise that the words after "Council" to the end of the clause should be omitted, and others substituted relating to the repeal of certain Acts. It had been held that it would be distinctly productive of harm if a law, passed by the assent of the Colonies united in Council, should be repealed by a particular Colony, which might be the Colony in respect of which that law was originally passed by the Federal Council. In moving this Amendment, he pointed out that power was taken providing that no assent would be given to any Act which did not contain proper safeguards for all that might take place under the provisions of this clause.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, to omit all the words after "Council" to the end of the Clause, in order to insert "unless altered or repealed by the Council."—(Colonel Stanley.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Preamble.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER,said, he had no wish to delay the further consideration of the Bill; but he might be allowed to remark that this was a very tentative measure. He was not sure, however, that it would be less likely to succeed on that account. He thought he should be expressing the general feeling of the

    1125
    Committee by expressing regret that the most important of the Australasian Colonies—New South Wales and New Zealand—were not included in the Bill, because he thought that nothing like a complete federation policy could be obtained without those two Colonies giving their adhesion to it. He thought, however, that their union with the Colonies could not be injured or damaged by the confederation of the Colonies amongst themselves, and that the tentative way in which the Bill had been passed would conduce to all the Colonies joining in the movement hereafter, which would be lasting, and for the good of the whole.
    Preamble agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND BILL [Lords]— [BILL, 242.]
  (Secretary Sir It. Assheton Cross.)
  SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND BILL [Lords]— [BILL, 242.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 3rd August.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 3 (Secretary may sit in Parliament).
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, the Amendment he rose to move, although verbal, was one of considerable importance. It had been admitted, in a former discussion on the Bill, that the words "if not a Member of the House of Lords" were merely permissive, though if they meant anything at all they pointed to the new Secretary being a Member of the House of Lords; but if they meant nothing, then he said that they might as well be omitted. He accepted the declaration which the hon. Member for Buteshire (Mr. Dalrymple) made on going into Committee, that it was not intended to allocate this Office either to the House of Lords or to the House of Commons. Therefore, he might assume that the words were not intended to imply that this officer should be a Member of the House of Lords; but, at the same time, the putting in of the words pointed to the probability of his being sometimes a Member of the other House of Parliament, and therefore he thought they were dangerous, and ought to be omitted from the Bill. He admitted that the
    1126
    circumstances in which the former Bill was introduced had given some excuse for the introduction of the words, inasmuch as there was a very eminent Scotchman thoroughly versed in and able to manage Scotch affairs, and more popular in Scotland than any other—he meant the Earl of Rosebery—who had the misfortune to be a Member of the House of Lords; therefore, he said that the circumstances were peculiar. But if the new Secretary were to be a Member of the House of Lords the arrangement would be attended with the utmost inconvenience. Let hon. Members imagine what the state of things would be if the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, instead of being a Member of that House in which he was present every day to answer Questions, were a Member of the House of Lords. Why, Irish Members would not be able to get their Questions answered; and he said that if they were to constitute a Secretary for Scotland, Scotch Members would want to get at him every day and have their Questions answered. It seemed to him only reasonable, then, that the new officer should be a Member of that House, and not of the House of Lords, so that he might always be present to give information upon the various subjects connected with Scotland. Again, all the present Ministers who sat in the House of Lords had Secretaries in the House of Commons; but in this Bill there was no provision for anything of the kind. There was a provision for a certain staff of secretaries and clerks, but there was no provision for any one of them having a seat in that House; and, therefore, if the new officer were to be a Member of the other House of Parliament he would be utterly unrepresented in the House of Commons. Then to say that the Lord Advocate could give answers with regard to a Department not his own would be humiliating to the Lord Advocate, who, in that case, would not express his own opinions, but be merely the mouthpiece of another person, with whom he had no official connection. Having shown the great inconvenience that would arise from the Secretary for Scotland being a Member of the House of Lords, he wanted to make the Bill state clearly one way or the other what was intended; and, therefore, bearing in

    1127
    mind the statement of the hon. Member for Bute (Mr. Dalrymple) that the words "if not a Member of the House of Lords" did not carry the meaning that the new officer was to be a Member of either House in preference to the other, in the interest of statesmanship, grammar, and good drafting, he begged to move that they be struck out of the clause.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 18, to leave out the words "if not a Member of the House of Lords."—(Sir George Campbell.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. J. B. BALFOURsaid, his recollection did not entirely agree with that of his hon. Friend who had just spoken. According to his recollection, when the former Bill was before the House two years ago, his hon. Friend made almost the same speech against these words as he had made that night, and he (Mr. J. B. Balfour) had the honour of answering it. He thought it was the feeling of the House at the time that there should not be a restriction in the Bill upon the selection of the Crown of a fit officer who might be found in either House. It would seem that his hon. Friend had rather shifted his ground, because he had now hinted that there should be something like a plain intimation in the Bill that, so to speak, the other House of Legislature should be excluded. He submitted that the Committee should adhere to the decision arrived at two years ago after some hours' discussion.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Lord Advocate had omitted two points in connection with this subject. It was true that an Amendment of this kind was brought forward two years ago, but it was brought forward by the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), and it was supported by Scotch Members now on those Benches. But it would seem from the silence of right hon. Gentlemen opposite that it was not considered worth while now to discuss an Amendment of this character. This clause was taken almost verbatim from the Local Government Board (England) Act of 1871; but the clause in that
    1128
    Act which corresponded to the clause in this Bill did not contain these words. He asked why were these words introduced into the present Bill, unless there was some intention of a Member of the House of Lords being generally appointed to this Office? If the words meant nothing he could not see what objection there could be to removing them; if they meant anything they could only have the meaning he had applied to them. Therefore, he thought they ought to have a distinct statement from Her Majesty's Government as to what was meant by putting them into the Bill.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he could assure hon. Members that, as far as the present Government were concerned, there was no thought of giving preference to one House or the other; nor did he believe there was any such intention on the part of the late Government, although, of course, he know nothing whatever about that. Her Majesty's Government only wanted to appoint the most fitting person to the Office. But the words being in the clause he should be extremely sorry if they were struck out, because it would seem as if they meant to give the preference to a Member of the House of Commons.
    Amendment negatived.
    On Motion of Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS, the following Amendments made:—Page 1, line 23, leave out "and;" line 24, at end, add—
    "And in Part First of the Schedule of 'The Promissory Oaths Act, 1868,' as regards England."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 4 (Seal, style, and acts of Secretary) agreed to.
    Clause 5 (Transfer of powers of—Secretary of State: Privy Council: Local Government Board and Treasury).
    MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTsaid, he had put on the Paper an Amendment to Sub-section (2), the object of which was to insert after the word "Schedule" the words—
    "And generally all powers and duties of the Scotch Education Department as defined by 'The Education (Scotland) Act, 1872,' in relation to education in Scotland."
    He might mention that, besides his own Amendment, there was another Amend-

    1129
    ment standing on the Paper in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Fife (Mr. Preston Bruce), which went a very long way in the same direction as his own, the object of both being to insure, as far as they could, that the transfer of the powers and duties with regard to education in Scotland from the Education Department to the new Minister for Scotland should be thorough and real. At this point he should like to say, with regard to certain objections which had been made to their contention that the Minister for Scotland should be a real personage, that he was sure that there was no part of Scotland where there was any wish to go in the direction of what was called Home Rule. He moved that these powers should be transferred to the Minister for Scotland, because they wished him to have as many important powers as they could give him; but, coming from Scotland, he could speak with some authority in saying that he did not believe that with any true and thorough Scotchman, from one end of the country to another, there was any wish to go in the direction of Home Rule. He, for one, looked upon that in reference to Ireland, Scotland, and Wales as an idle dream. If there were anything which would make Scotchmen unwilling to approach the question of the repeal of the Union, it would be the idea that Scotland was being made a stalking horse in this matter of Home Rule. But he did not wish to pursue that subject any further. And while they objected to Home Rule for Scotland, they disliked the idea of English Home Rule in England; and they looked forward with increased hope to the future, when Scotland, having one-sixth more than the present number of its Members, would speak with a louder voice than hitherto, not only in the affairs of Scotland, but with regard to the affairs of the Empire. They wished to improve the administrative machinery under which Scotland was governed. They had their Scotch Boards, and other Scotch Departments, and in many respects they were a self-governing community; and they wished that the educational institutions of the country, which were not less national than other institutions, should be in the hands of a Scotch Minister. The Bill had assumed its present shape, if he might say so, almost unawares; it had passed through a certain ordeal of discussion in
    1130
    "another place;" but, so far as the subject of education was concerned, it was a Bill entirely different from that which was introduced in the House of Lords. The shape in which it was introduced in the other House of Parliament was the shape to which he desired to restore it by the words of his Amendment. When the Bill was before the other House in that shape an Amendment was printed and circulated among noble Lords to the effect that it was proposed to omit all mention of the Education Act, and to substitute the words "President of the Council" in the clause, by which the new Minister to be appointed by the Bill would not have all the powers of the Education Act conferred upon him, but would be simply President of the Council by virtue of the Bill. That Amendment, which was put on the Paper and circulated, was never thoroughly discussed in the House of Lords; and when, next day, the Bill was printed it was found that other words had been inserted. It was in that way that the Bill came into its present shape. He had been gratified to hear some remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) on the previous evening, from which he gathered that they would have his powerful support for the Bill as presented to the other House of Parliament. The Scotch Education Department, whose powers he wished to see transferred to the new Minister, was a Body called into existence by the Scotch Education Act of 1872. That lawfully constituted Body, which ought to be supreme in educational matters in Scotland, was not supreme, because they were, unhappily, in the hands of the Vice President of the Council. If any hon. Member looked into the Statutes he would find that there was a constituted authority for the management of Scotch educational affairs, and he would find in the Scotch Education Act of 1872 no reference whatever to the Vice President of the Council. The Vice President of the Council obtained his authority under the Act of 1856; but, inasmuch as this system was started in 1872, it would appear to be meant by the Statute of that year that the Board of Education should be supreme in educational matters. Well, that Body, constituted as he had shown, practically never met at all. [Mr. MUNDELLA dis-

    1131
    sented.] The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) shook his head; but he had been told that it had been characterized by the Earl of Rosebery, who knew the state of affairs in Scotland very well, as a "phantom Board." He had been informed that, even in the important annual work of the Department for the purpose of introducing the annual Code, it had not been the practice to summon the Council together. His right hon. Friend might say that the Government were about to inaugurate a different state of things. But they were now regulating matters by Act of Parliament; and he should like to know, and have it stated on the face of this Act, who was really to be their authority in future over Scotch education matters? If there was one point which more than another had characterized Scotch education, it was the thoroughly local character of that education. In England it was the Privy Council on which the whole system of education depended. It was entirely different with regard to Scotland. They had long had in Scotland a national and local system of education; and he said that those who told them that educational interests in Scotland could not be looked after without the aid of the Education Department of the Privy Council were putting aside all the teachings of history. And when it was attempted to be pointed out, as it was last night by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair), that it was due to that Department that Scotch education had so progressed, he replied that the progress of Scotch education had been mainly due to the old laws of Scotland, under which there was no Central Department whatever. It was those laws, the local energies of the Scotch people, their parochial efforts, and their love of education, which they had to thank for education in Scotland being now so far advanced. As in the past so it would be in the future. He said that the main basis of the educational system of Scotland was to trust to the local bodies and school boards, and not to the Central Government in England or elsewhere. He did not think that in every case the Education Department had done everything it might have done to assist local efforts; and that, he maintained, was its principal duty. He knew it would be
    1132
    impossible to get from the Late Vice President of the Council anything like a sympathetic opinion on that point; but they must not be governed in these matters by Departmental considerations. They had to look at the question from the general point of view of the people of Scotland. They had had last night an eloquent speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir. Lyon Playfair) against the Bill; but he would ask if he meant to toll them that Scotch education would have been in a worse position if it had been his business, from a sympathetic point of view, to superintend the administration of education in Scotland? He spoke of no secondary interest, and not merely of the interest of a small country attached to a larger one; but if this had been the main business of some distinguished Scotchman—that to which he looked to make his credit and fame—then he said that Scotland would have been much better off in the matter of education than it was to-day. He would not trespass longer on the time of the Committee, further than to say that he did not wish to differ from the hon. Member for Fife (Mr. Preston Bruce). His own Amendment, however, seemed to be the more thorough-going, and he preferred it for the reason that it made the matter perfectly clear, and therefore he asked the Committee to accept it. Finally, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department should explain to the Committee clearly what line Her Majesty's Government meant to take up with regard to this matter, and whether they intended to make the educational transfer as thorough as he and his hon. Friends desired it to be. He believed there was strong feeling amongst Scotch Members in favour of making that transfer real and substantial.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 12, after the word Schedule, to insert the words "and generally all powers and duties of the Scotch Education Department, as defined by 'The Education (Scotland) Act, 1872,' in relation to education in Scotland."—(Mr. A. R. D. Elliot.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsubmitted to the Committee that this was not merely a Scotch question; it was also

    1133
    one in which England was very much interested, because if they separated Scotch education from English they equally separated English education from Scottish. This had been represented as a matter of Scottish self-government, and, no doubt, self-government was a matter that was extremely desirable; but it would not be promoted by this Bill. He deprecated the clause as it stood, and was in favour of the adoption of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair). The Bill did not give the people of Mid Lothian or Perthshire, or Edinburgh or Glasgow, any additional powers over their own educational affairs; but it merely placed the administration under one Minister of the Crown instead of under another. It did not transfer the administration even to Edinburgh, but left it, as it was now, in London. The object at which they should aim was to secure, as far as possible, the same laws for the Three Kingdoms, and, remembering that union was strength, to maintain firmly the unity of the Empire. But the tendency of the clause was very different. It did not give any additional powers of local self-government; but, on the other hand, it tended to introduce differences between Scotland and England. The tendency even of the same system administered by different persons was to introduce different treatment, and no one who had had the honour of sitting on the Public Accounts Committee of that House could fail to have observed how the same Acts were interpreted in a totally different manner by different Departments. The House of Commons had for many years been gradually assimilating the laws of England and Scotland, to the great advantage of both Kingdoms, and this unfortunate and mischievous Bill was a step backwards. They had all condemned the incongruous arrangement which placed under one Minister the responsibility for education and for cattle disease. But it was now proposed, so far as Scotland was concerned, to aggravate this anomaly tenfold, and impose on one Minister a number of incongruous duties, to perform the majority of which he must necessarily be unsuited. The question before the Committee was, in truth, whether Ministers should be
    1134
    allocated to subjects or to localities. If the clause under discussion passed they could not stop there. The real question appeared to him to be whether they should have in future one Minister for Education, another for the Local Government Board, another presiding over the Home Office, and so on; or whether they should have separate Ministers for different localities—Ministers for Scotland, for England, for Wales, and so on; because if they once took a step in that direction they could not refrain from going further. Surely it would be wiser to have their Ministers according to the subject with which they bad to deal rather than according to the localities. Which was the most natural division of duties, by subjects or by localities? His hon. Friend who had just sat down stated that no one who had been present last night could have failed to mark the want of credit which was given to the Report of the Committee which sat last year. He respectfully differed altogether from the views of the hon. Member. No doubt, the Committee had reported in opposition to the views of the hon. Member and those who agreed with him; but he thought that Members generally would concur with him (Sir John Lubbock) that the Committee was considered at the time a very strong Committee. An assertion had been made that the Committee declined to hear Scotch witnesses; but he believed that was entirely a mistake. None of the Members of the Committee to whom he had been able to speak remembered any circumstance of the kind. The Committee had examined the Heads of the Department, both of whom were Scotchmen. As to the opinion of Scotland on this question, his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) showed them last night that the opinion of the educationalists of Scotland was mainly against the proposals in the Bill. His hon. Friend who had just sat down had referred to the views of the Paisley Town Council and others who were in favour of the clause; but although the Town Council of Paisley had petitioned in favour of it, the school board of that town had petitioned in an opposite sense. In fact, the most important school boards were opposed to the clause in the Bill. So far as he could learn, there had only been one meeting upon the subject held

    1135
    in Scotland, and that was of the Educational Congress at Ayr, where a resolution was submitted upon the question, and the decision arrived at was unanimously in favour of the appointment of a Minister of Education for the whole Kingdom. One member of the Congress, who moved an amendment in the sense of the clause, got no support whatever, and did not press it to a division. This was not only a Scotch question, but he maintained that English opinion should also be taken into consideration. Now, in England he believed there was no one who was interested in education who would not lament a separation, so far as education was concerned, between England and Scotland. They now selected for the Vice Presidency of the Council some statesman whoso attention had been particularly directed to the important question of education, and who could give to it, he would not say his sole attention, but, at any rate, the best of his energies. Having decided the questions which came before him, the whole of Great Britain had the benefit of his experience. But what would happen under the clause? The Minister for Scotland would not be chosen specially from an educational point of view. In the first place, he must generally be a Scotchman. He would have to deal with a great variety of subjects which must more or less be taken into account. But even suppose that they got a man as good, from an educational point of view, as they did now, still he would not practically be so efficient. His time and thoughts, instead of being in the main concentrated on education, would be distracted by problems connected with the other duties which the Bill proposed to throw upon him. He doubted whether among English schoolmasters one could be found in favour of the proposed change. The National Union of Elementary Teachers, at their annual Conference, passed a resolution to the effect that a Minister of Education should be immediately appointed, who should have charge of elementary and secondary education in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; and subsequently the executive of the Association resolved that every assistance be given to the educational institutions of Scotland in their opposition to the Secretary for Scotland Bill. There was very general opposition
    1136
    in England to any proposal to separate England from Scotland in the work of education, and there was a nearly unanimous opinion that education would be greatly benefited by maintaining the connection. National education must be considered from a national point of view, and not merely from the point of view of any one locality, however important; because the result of separation would not be decentralization, but disintegration. If they substituted local authority in this case they would find themselves unable to stop there. They had already seen what the tendency was, because when the Bill was first drafted, two or three years ago, it did not include education. Education was now included in it, and there was still every danger of allocating fresh subjects to the Minister for Scotland. In fact, the whole tendency was to separate the administration of the two countries from each other. Of course, if that were done in regard to Scotland, it was clear that it would render it still more difficult to resist the desire for Home Rule on the part of Ireland. The hon. Member stated that he had no desire to establish anything in the shape of Home Rule; but it did not matter what the desire of his hon. Friend was if the adoption of a principle of this kind tended directly to encourage such a measure. It would certainly be still more difficult to resist Home Rule in Ireland; and then there would probably be a similar demand on the part of Wales. Indeed, it was impossible to say where it would stop. No doubt hon. Gentlemen who supported the clause did not concur with him in that opinion. He hoped that they might be right, and that he might be wrong. Again, there was a very strong, he might almost say a unanimous, desire on the part of those interested in education that there should be a Minister of Education, and that he should have a seat in the Cabinet. Evidently, however, the Bill would tend to defeat that object. Scotch Members seemed to regard this as a small matter; but in Scotland itself the Bill was regarded as of much importance. It was stated by some hon. Gentlemen that it was simply a matter of administration; but it seemed to him to have a much wider bearing; and he confessed that he could not help looking upon the proposal with a considerable

    1137
    amount of apprehension. For his part he opposed the clause, because he feared it might prove "the little reft in the lute" which would introduce discord, and destroy the harmony between different portions of the Empire which they ought, by every means in their power, to promote. He, therefore, ox-pressed a sincere hope that Her Majesty's Government would not adopt the Amendment which had been proposed, but would, on the contrary, support that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh.
    DR. CAMERONwished to make an explanation with regard to the statement of his hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), that some Members of the Childers' Committee were not aware that Scotch evidence had been tendered to the Committee and refused. As he (Dr. Cameron) was responsible for that statement he would give his authority. The Secretary to the Scotch Board of Education (Dr. Taylor) wrote as follows:—
    "I wrote to Sir Lyon Playfair earnestly recommending that the Chairman, and, at least, one member of the late Board of Education, should be invited to give evidence, and he paid no attention to my suggestion."
    SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: I never heard of that suggestion until this moment.
    MR. ASHERremarked, that if his hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) had been in the House last night he would have discovered that the almost unanimous opinion of the House was contrary to the views he had expressed.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, there had been a mistake about the second reading of the Bill. He, and others, had been given to understand that it would not be taken, or they would have been in their places.
    MR. ASHERsaid, he rather thought that the proceedings of last night had conclusively established that, by the general assent of the House, Scotch education was to be transferred from the Vice President of tin; Council to the Secretary for Scotland; and, as far as he could gather, the speech of his hon. Friend was directed against the principle of the Bill, and against the estab-
    1138
    lishment of any Minister at all for the administration of Scotch affairs. He did not rise for the purpose of replying to the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), but for the purpose of making some remarks on the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot), because he fully realized the great importance of that Amendment. It seemed to him that it very fairly raised the question as to what ought to be the official status and the position of the Secretary for Scotland in regard to the administration of Scotch education. Upon the decision of that question it would very largely depend whether the transfer of Scotch education from the Vice President of the Council to the Secretary for Scotland was to be a step advantageous or the reverse. The propriety of that transfer, he thought, had been generally regarded as involving questions of great delicacy and difficulty; and he did not attempt to conceal that he had regarded it from that point of view. But after the best consideration he had been able to give to the subject, he had come to the conclusion that the advantages resulting from the transfer would outweigh the possible disadvantages which were anticipated by some. But, at the same time, he thought the realization of the advantages depended very largely on what might be the official status and position of the Secretary for Scotland in regard to the administration of Scotch education. He was, therefore, anxious to make some remarks on the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot), because he was in this position—that he sympathized very largely with the views expressed by his hon. Friend; but, at the same time, he was unable to agree with the Amendment he had proposed. He understood that it was the desire of his hon. Friend in moving the Amendment to aggrandize, as far as he could, the position of the Secretary who would be charged with the administration of Scotch education, and in that desire his hon. Friend had his entire sympathy; but he asked his hon. Friend's attention to the fact that if the Amendment he had proposed were carried the result would be to extinguish

    1139
    the Scotch Education Department; and while he wished to see the Secretary for Scotland occupying as prominent and leading a position as possible in connection with that Department, he doubted very much the expediency of extinguishing the Department, and vesting the whole powers at present belonging to it exclusively in the Secretary for Scotland. He asked his hon. Friend to consider whether he was not going a little beyond the point he himself aimed at in pressing the Amendment; and whether the result he desired to secure would not be more effectually obtained if he were to withdraw the Amendment and support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Fifeshire (Mr. Preston Bruce) who proposed to substitute for "Vice President" the word "President." On the question what was to be the position of the Secretary for Scotland in reference to Scotch education, there appeared to be three propositions before the Committee. There was the proposal in the Bill to make the Secretary a Vice President; there was the proposal of his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) that the Secretary should be an ex officio Member of the Department. There was also the proposal of the hon. Member for Fifeshire (Mr. Preston Bruce) to make the Secretary for Scotland President of the Education Department. He had no hesitation in saying that he was in favour of the view suggested by his hon. Friend, the Member for Fifeshire (Mr. Preston Bruce). It appeared to him that there could be no greater danger to Scotch education than to place it under the charge of a Minister who would not be a Scotch Education Minister in fact, but merely in name. He doubted very much, if the Scotch Secretary were merely Vice President of the Council, or merely a Member ex officio of the Council, whether he would be anything more than a Scotch Minister of Education in name. The effect of the Bill in that case would be to detach Scotch education from the care of the present Vice President of the Council, and, therefore, to lose the benefit of his attention and administration, and to hand it over to a Minister who, in his (Mr. Asher's) opinion, would not have the power that was essential to
    1140
    enable him properly to discharge his duties to Scotland in the matter. There could be no doubt of the importance of everything connected with education to the people of Scotland. There was, probably, no subject in which the whole mass of the people of Scotland were more directly interested than in that of education. To the facilities of education they had hitherto enjoyed they owed more than anything else the position they had occupied in the battle of life. After this Bill passed the Scotch people would look to the Secretary for Scotland and hold him responsible for the proper administration of education. It appeared to him that that was a responsibility which it would not be legitimate or fair to put upon any Minister, unless they gave to him, at the same time, power to deal with it according to his own judgment. If he were merely to be a Vice President of the Council, or an ex officio Member of the Council, he would not have the opportunity of exercising that power and that independent judgment which was essential to the proper administration of his Office. He would be liable to be frustrated by a possible difference of opinion between the Lord President of the Council and himself, on the one hand, and on the other, through want of sufficient authority in himself, to be controlled, to a large extent, by the permanent Department over which he would preside. He (Mr. Asher) did not mean by that to depreciate the great advantage it must be for a Minister to have the assistance of a permanent Department; but there could not be any doubt that, as between the Minister and the permanent Department, the influence of the Minister would largely depend upon whether he was independent or subordinate. He thought that it would be highly disadvantageous to the interests of Scotch education, if the Secretary for Scotland, whom he assumed it was now decided to charge with the administration of Scotch education, were not a person with controlling power in the matter; and he humbly thought that the best way of effecting that object was to accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Fifeshire (Mr. Preston Bruce), and not that of the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. Elliot), which took no step to strengthen the hands of the Mi-

    1141
    nister, but to deprive him of the able advice he would obtain from a Scotch Education Department. He wished to see the Minister in the position of a person rather having to take than to give advice. If he were a Vice President he would give advice; if he were President he would receive advice, and act according to his own judgment.
    SIR LYON PLAYTFAIRsaid, he would remind the Committee that it would be impossible ever to get through their work if endless speeches ranging over all the Amendments on the Paper were to be delivered. He would, therefore, confine himself to the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. Elliot). His hon. Friend seemed to have forgotten the speech of the Earl of Rosebery in the other House when he introduced his Bill. The noble Earl said he was desirous to transfer education wholly to the Scotch Minister; but upon examining it he found he would have to pull up all the education of Scotland, root and branch, from the present system, and he said it was impossible to do that on the lines of the Department as it now existed. It was for that reason that the noble Earl altered the Bill, and made the Scotch Secretary Vice President of the Education Department. He did not propose to discuss that question now, because it would come on afterwards; but he entreated the Committee not to agree to the Amendment of his hon. Friend, which was really pulling up the whole root of the education of Scotland without repealing the Acts upon which it had been grounded, or introducing any other measure by which education could be carried on. The Bill at present ran on the lines of the Education Department; but the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend was a complete upheaval of the whole system, without substituting anything else that was reasonable. He therefore opposed the Amendment of his hon. Friend.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, he did not understand the Amendment of his hon. Friend in the way in which the right hon. Gentleman understood it. The Amendment proposed to confer on the new Minister all the powers and duties of the Scotch Education Department as defined by "The Education (Scotland) Act, 1872." He
    1142
    saw no reason why the conferring of those powers on the Secretary for Scotland should do away with the Scotch Education Department. There was no reason for apprehending any such consequence, and there was no provision of the kind contained in the Amendment. The Amendment simply proposed to continue in the Secretary for Scotland all the power and privileges of the Scotch Education Department, and the power and privileges of the Scotch Education Department were defined in the Act of 1872, and other Acts relating to education, which would hereafter have to be dealt with. He thought it would be a great mistake, and he quite concurred with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Elgin (Mr. Asher) in thinking that there would be advantage in having the Secretary for Scotland Minister of the Scotch Education Department rather than that a second President of the Council should be established. But he thought his hon. and learned Friend was forgetting that the Education Department up to this time, as far as counsel and advice had gone, had never been anything more than a name. What had they done? [Laughter.] Hon. Members laughed, he presumed, at the idea of his putting such a query, seeing that the Scotch Education Department never met. He had certainly never heard of I a meeting of the Scotch Education Department—that was to say, that the Members of the Department, who were Privy Councillors, had never been called together on any occasion except in regard to the Bill now under discussion, and called the "Heriot's Endowment Bill."
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)thought that the Committee were wasting time in this preliminary discussion. The point the Committee had to decide and what the Government wanted to know was whether the Scotch people wanted to hand over Scotch educational affairs to a President, a Vice President, or an ex officio Member of the Privy Council. Those were the three propositions which were before the Committee. He did not wish to discuss any of the three alternatives; but he would ask his hon. Friend the Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. Elliot) whether he

    1143
    did not think it a more convenient course to withdraw his Amendment, and discuss the subject on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Fife (Mr. Preston Bruce)? He thought that would be far the most convenient course for the Committee to take, and he would recommend it in the interest of progress.
    MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTsaid, he could not withdraw the Amendment at present. He should like, in the first place, to know more distinctly what the Government proposed to do in the matter, and whether his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Elgin (Mr. Asher) represented the views of the Front Opposition Bench? He would remind the Committee that in moving the Amendment he had begun his statement by pointing out that there was no antagonism between his Amendment and that of his hon. Friend the Member for Fife (Mr. Preston Bruce). He thought, however, that the whole question would be better considered in one discussion rather than in two or three, and he would like that one discussion to be taken now.
    MR. ASHER,in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot), said, that in the remarks he had made he had only expressed his own personal opinions.
    MR. PRESTON BRUCEsaid, the present difficulty of the position was a good deal owing to extreme uncertainty as to what the Government intended to do. As far as he could determine, the Bill of the Government placed the Secretary for Scotland in exactly the same relation to the Lord President as the Vice President now occupied, and, consequent as, it left the question of the patronage of the Scotch Education Department in the hands of the Lord President; secondly, it probably left the Scotch official staff along with the English official staff; and, in the third place, he supposed it implied that in the meetings of the Scotch Committee of the Privy Council the Lord President would preside if he were present. It was something to know that that was the meaning of the clause as it stood; but it was an arrangement which, he thought, was much to be deprecated; and, personally, he would rather take the direct Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for
    1144
    Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot), yet he believed that his (Mr. Bruce's) Amendment would substantially have the same effect. If he had any indication from the Government that they would accept it, he believed the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. Elliot) would withdraw his Amendment.
    THE PRESIDENT (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, that the Government thought that, on the whole, the Bill as it now stood represented the general bias of Scotch sentiment. He admitted that they had had some difficulty in arriving at that opinion. They did not think that the various Amendments were very profound or very substantial; and, on the whole, they were of opinion that the scheme embodied in the Bill was the best scheme that could be adopted, and they desired to take the opinion of the Committee on that question. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had asked a series of questions as to the precise position which, under the Bill, the Minister for Scotland would occupy. The Government thought the Minister for Scotland should occupy, as regarded Scotch education, precisely the same position as that which was occupied in regard to English education by the Vice President of the Council—not a higher and not a lower position. The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman would, as he understood the matter, put him in a higher position than was occupied by his right hon. Friend near him (Mr. E. Stanhope) in regard to England. He did not think that that would effect any improvement in the matter. To give to Scotland everything that England had appeared to the Government to be adequate and sufficient. Therefore, the Bill as it stood was a sufficient and reasonable compromise between the extreme views expressed by the hon. Member for Fife (Mr. Preston Bruce) on the one hand, and those of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh University (Sir Lyon Playfair) on the other. The Government were satisfied, on the whole, that the opinion of Scotland was in favour of the Bill.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, that at last they had arrived at the deliverance of the Government Bench; but it certainly was not in accordance with the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman last night. As far as he understood the

    1145
    right hon. Gentleman's statement last night, it was that his opinion was that the Scotch Secretary should be made—he thought the word used by the right hon. Gentleman was "Chairman" of the Education Board.
    THE PEESIDENT (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, that he had never said anything of the kind. What he had said was that the effect of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite would be to make the Secretary for Scotland Chairman; but he had never said that he thought he should be so.
    MR. BUCHANANbegged the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; but many hon. Members had been under a similar misapprehension, and had regarded the statement of the right hon. Gentleman in that way. But in regard to what the right hon. Gentleman had now said, there could be no question that the Government did not intend to give the Scotch Secretary effective charge of education. There could no longer be any doubt about that. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) had pointed it out with perfect clearness last night; and there was one part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech in which he (Mr. Buchanan) entirely concurred—namely, where he pointed out that the Scotch Secretary, as Vice President in regard to Scotch education, instead of being practically paramount, as in England, would virtually have no control over education. The nod which the Home Secretary gave just now to the hon. Member for Fife (Mr. Preston Bruce) fully confirmed his (Mr. Buchanan's) interpretation as to the result of what the Government proposed to do. His hon. Friend had asked if this Bill would leave all the patronage in the hands of the Lord President, and the right hon. Gentleman nodded "Yes." And when his hon. Friend further asked if it would not also leave the staff for the Scotch educational work in the English Department, the President of the Local Government Board approved. Now, that was contrary to what the Home Secretary had told them last night in regard to Clause 2. [Cries of "No!"] The right hon. Gentleman was asked whether the Amendment proposed by him to be introduced into Clause 2 would enable the officials of
    1146
    the Department charged with Scotch education to be transferred to the new Secretary's Office, and he answered yes; but they now discovered that, although it would enable them to be transferred to the new Office, it was not the intention of the Government that they should be so transferred. [Cries of "No!"] Well, the right hon. Gentleman did not deny it; and now they had a declaration from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, speaking on behalf of the Government, that it was not the intention to work the Scotch Education Department from the Secretary for Scotland's Office. He, therefore, maintained that the Government did not intend to give the Scotch Secretary effective charge of Scotch education under this Bill. His right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) had quoted the Earl of Rosebery, but had omitted to say what the nature of the discussion was which took place in the House of Lords. The Bill, as it now stood, was not in the shape in which the Amendment had been submitted by the Earl of Rosebery; and what the Earl of Rosebery said in regard to the purport of the Bill as it stood was that, it was not taking Scotch education out of the Education Office, nor was it putting education under the control of the Scotch Board.
    THE PRESIDENT (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Who said that?
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, he was quoting a speech of the Earl of Rosebery in the House of Lords on the third reading of the Bill. The Marquess of Lothian, on the same occasion, asked if it was intended that the Scotch Education Department was to be wholly distinct and separate from the English Education Department, and the control vested in a Scotch Minister upon the Committee of Council. [Cries of "Order!"] He fully appreciated the generosity of the Committee in allowing him to transgress the Rules of the Committee by quoting a debate in "another place." But they had the evidence of the Earl of Rosebery himself in the House of Lords and the statement of a supporter of the Government in the House of Lords that the Bill would not give, in any effective way, the charge of Scotch education to

    1147
    the Secretary for Scotland. And now the Government told them that it had never been intended, in any effective way, to confer the charge of Scotch education upon the Secretary for Scotland. Therefore, in order to test the sincerity of the Government on the subject, he hoped they would have a distinct division—he did not care whether it was taken upon the present Amendment or that of the hon. Member for Fife (Mr. Preston Bruce)—as to whether they were to give effective control—yes or no—of Scotch education to the Secretary for Scotland.
    THE SECRETAEY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, the hon. Member was mistaken in regard to what had fallen from his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board either last night or to-night. He was not aware that his right hon. Friend had ever changed his mind at all; and the Government were responsible for this part of the Bill long before it came down from the House of Lords. He thought the hon. Member was wrong in saying that the Government did not wish that the Scotch people should have a proper voice in their own educational matters. If the general feeling of all the Scotch Members had been clearly one on this matter, the Government, whatever their own views were, would have felt bound by their opinions; but, unfortunately, the opinion of the Scotch Members was very much divided. There were, as the President of the Local Government Board had stated, three different and distinct views on the subject. One was that the whole of the work in connection with the Scotch Education Department should absolutely and completely pass over to the Scotch Office under the charge of a President, and, although nominally in London, it should be absolutely separate from the Education Department. That was one view of the matter. Another view was that the Secretary for Scotland should simply be an ex officio Member of the Scotch Education Board, which went entirely the other way. A great number of people in Scotland took one view of the matter; but there was also a considerable number of persons who would be quite content with a mean between the two extremes, and that mean had been found
    1148
    in the present Bill. As there was nothing like unanimity in Scotland as to either of the extremes, he thought it would be wise to remain by the Bill as it stood. The hon. Member who last spoke might not have known that there was an Amendment on the Paper in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Glasgow (Mr. J. A. Campbell), to the effect that the Scotch Education Board should have a distinct permanent Secretary to attend to the business of Scotch education. To that Amendment he attached considerable importance. They considered that if the Secretary for Scotland was to be Vice President of the Education Board for Scotland, it was quite right that he should have a permanent Secretary with an adequate staff. So far as the Government were concerned, they had a real desire to know what the voice of the people of Scotland was in the matter; but, under all the circumstances, he thought it would be better to abide by the Bill as it stood in the absence of any strong feeling in favour of one or other of the three alternatives proposed, and he hoped they would now go to a division, so that they might see how Scotch opinion was running on the point. That could scarcely be done by first having one speech on one side and then one on the other.
    MR. WILLIAMSONsaid, he hoped the Committee had now really done with the Amendment. He confessed that he was unable to read the Amendment of the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) without looking at the other Amendment in the name of the same hon. Member in which they were asked to leave out Clause 6, which would be perfectly destructive of education in Scotland. The Committee were placed in a sort of quandary between making the Secretary for Scotland either President, or Vice President, or an ex officio Member. He sympathized with the idea of making the new Minister an ex officio Member of the Department only; but he thought the Government had acted wisely in choosing the middle course of making him Vice President.
    MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTsaid, he rose to say that, in consequence of the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Elgin (Mr. Asher), he would withdraw his Amendment, so that the division might be taken upon that of his

    1149
    hon. Friend the Member for Fife (Mr. Preston Bruce).
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    THE CHAIRMANasked if the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) withdrew his Amendment?
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, he did not propose to take that course at present; and as he wished to say a few words upon the Amendment, he would move to insert, after the word "Schedule," in line 12—
    "And all rights of patronage relating to educational offices and appointments in Scotland vested in the Lord President of the Council or the Scotch Education Department."
    If the right hon. Gentleman would look at the Amendment, he would see that if the Amendment of his hon. Friend below him (Mr. Elliot), or of his hon. Friend the Member for Fife (Mr. Preston Bruce), had been accepted by the Government, he would never have thought of moving his own; but, on the understanding that the Government were disinclined to accept either of the Amendments of his hon. Friends, he maintained that his would, to a certain degree, extend the functions of the Vice President created by the Bill, and would give him a more effective charge over Scotch education than he would otherwise have. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), in his evidence before the Childers' Committee, had expressed a strong opinion on the subject in support of the idea that the Vice President or Minister in charge of education should also have the charge of the patronage connected with education. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) had been equally strong upon the subject—that for the effective management of education the Minister in charge should also have the choice of those who were to work out the details of the Department. The right hon. Gentleman had carried his views in that direction, to some extent, during his tenure of Office as Vice President of the Council, and had succeeded in vesting a considerable part of the patronage in the Vice President which had previously been exercised by the Lord President. He (Mr. Buchanan), therefore, thought there was distinct value to be attached to his Amendment, supposing that the Government were unwilling to accept
    1150
    the other two Amendments. As had been pointed out by his right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh University (Sir Lyon Playfair), the Vice President, under the Bill, would not really have charge of Scotch education, and would not have any control over the appointments of those who were to carry out the work of the Education Department. His Amendment remedied one of those defects by transferring the patronage of the Department to the new Minister. He also thought that in support of that Amendment he might quote the opinion of the President of the Council himself, because when the Bill was before the House of Lords, and the Lord President was asked a question as to patronage, he stated that it would remain in the hands of the Lord President, in whom it had been vested by statute, and that it could not be removed except by statute. Therefore, he maintained that his Amendment would simply carry out the view of the President of the Council himself, who had stated that he accepted the Amendment of the Earl of Rosebery in substance, and that he wished to vest the patronage connected with the Scotch Education Department in the Secretary for Scotland.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 12, after the word "Schedule," add "and all rights of patronage relating to educational offices and appointments in Scotland vested in the Lord President of the Council or the Scotch Education Department."—(Mr. Buchanan.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE PRESIDENT (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, he admitted that it would be a very important thing if the Lord President were to exercise the rights of patronage without consulting the Vice President; but was there the least shadow of ground for supposing that he would do so?
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, that it had been so.
    THE PEESIDENT (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR.)said, the hon. Gentleman forgot that Scotch education was at present managed by the Vice President of the Council. No doubt, there was over that Council a President, and he was nominally vested with the patronage.
    MR. BUCHANAN: Not only nominally, but really.
    THE PRESIDENT (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, the same thing applied in the case of England; and could anybody suppose that education in England was vitiated by such an arrangement? Of course, in all educational matters the Lord President consulted the Vice President; and as he consulted the Vice President in England, he would undoubtedly consult the Vice President in Scotland, if the Secretary for Scotland were constituted Vice President by the Bill. He did not think that any difficulty could arise, and no danger would exist in regard to Scotch education which had not existed in reference to English education ever since the Education Act passed. He would go further, and appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who looked forward to the time when there would be one Education Minister for the United Kingdom. He would not presume to say how far an Education Minister for the whole of the Kingdom was necessary; but it was perfectly clear that by establishing two Vice Presidents, one for Scotland and one for England, and having over them a President, they left the door open for any future politicians who might so desire to establish a general Education Minister for the whole Kingdom without seriously disarranging the mechanism which this Bill proposed to constitute. Therefore, neither on the ground of existing practical inconvenience nor on the ground of future inconvenience could any difficulty arise; consequently, he was unable to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. At all events, it was clear that no weight or burden would be imposed upon Scotch education by this Bill, which did not exist at the present moment in connection with English education; and, as hon. Members well knew, the work of English education was very ably and effectively managed by the Vice President of the Council.
    MR. J. B. BALFOURthought it would be unfortunate if his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) were to press this Amendment, and for this reason—that a good many hon. Members would be constrained to vote against it who still wished to give the Minister for Scotland a real and effective control over Scotch, education. If they divided upon this Amendment they would be voting upon a false issue. He thought the division ought to be
    1152
    taken upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Fife (Mr. Preston Bruce) He took it that if this official were made the President of the Education Board, as he hoped to see him, this patronage would follow from his status and position. But if his hon. Friend insisted upon going to a division upon his Amendment hon. Members who wished to see the same object brought about—but who desired to see it brought about in a different way—would be compelled to vote against him, and their vote would be liable to misapprehension. The proper time for considering the question was when they came to deal with the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Fife (Mr. Preston Bruce), and a declaration about patronage in the present clause would be superfluous and inconvenient. He, therefore, hoped that his hon. Friend would follow the course which had been taken by the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. Elliot), and would withdraw the Amendment, leaving the Committee to divide upon that of the hon. Member for Fife (Mr. Preston Bruce).
    MR. MARJORIBANKSalso hoped the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) would not press his Amendment, which he thought would come a great deal better after they had decided whether the Miaister was to be President or Vice President. When they came to discuss the question of patronage, that was a matter upon which he might have a good deal to say; and if there were any danger of the patronage not being exercised by the Secretary of State, then the Amendment of his hon. Friend might be usefully brought up on the Report.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLthought the advice of the late Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) was very good advice, and he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) would take that view of the matter. Personally, he was inclined to enter into a compromise which would make the Secretary for Scotland Vice President and retain the connection with England. He thought that would be the best arrangement, and with that view he thought the Amendment had better be brought forward on Clause 6. One great defect in the present English system was that whereas one man did the work

    1153
    another man had the patronage. He thought the Vice President of the Council ought to be the real Minister of Education, and that he should have all the patronage. It would be a very bad thing for education in Scotland, if one Minister were to do all the work of the Department, and another were to exercise all the patronage. He trusted his hon. Friend would persevere with his Amendment, but not upon the present clause. He thought there ought to be in Scotland one man with definite ideas in regard to the administration of education, who should also make all the appointments.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, that although he was inclined to agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) as to the propriety of withdrawing the Amendment, he was afraid he could not do it on the ground which his hon. Friend had assigned. He wished to point out to the late Lord Advocate—his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. J. B. Balfour)—that he appeared to be a little timorous with regard to the votes that were given in that House. He would only point out that if the Committee were to carry his Amendment, the Vice President, who, as far as they knew, was going to be appointed under the Bill, would find his hands considerably strengthened, and strengthened in a direction in which they all desired to see them strengthened. And if his Amendment were carried, the Committee would still be able to vote for the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Fife (Mr. Preston Bruce), which he admitted to be a still more valuable Amendment. But in view of the arguments which had been used by the hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks), rather than put the Committee to the trouble of a division, he was perfectly willing to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL moved the following sub-section to Clause 5:—
    "(4.) All rights of patronage relating to offices and appointments in Scotland vested in one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State."
    The previous Amendments down to Clause 6 were not of the first importance; but this Amendment was a very import-
    1154
    ant one, and could not be treated in the same way, seeing that it was the outcome of the wisdom of "another place"—that was to say, of the House of Lords—when the Bill was brought into that House last year. On that occasion it had been threshed out more thoroughly than the Bill of the present year. It was not treated as a Party question, but as a question in regard to which different Parties could put their heads together and make the best Bill they could for the country. He was not one of those who desired to depreciate the House of Lords. On the contrary, he admitted that there was a considerable amount of wisdom in that Assembly, and the outcome of their wisdom on this subject last year was the clause he had copied from the Bill of last Session—a clause which, somehow or other, had dropped out of the Bill of the present year. One of the disadvantages which Scotch Members had to contend with was that Scotch Business was generally hurried over. One great complaint made by the Earl of Rosebery in the other House was that he found it impossible to get this Scotch Bill sufficiently discussed. The Members of the House of Lords were too frequently exhausted by their arduous labours up to half-past 8, when the dinner hour arrived. As that was generally the time a Scotch Bill was reached it was necessarily discussed in a very small House. So far as he could gather from the newspaper reports there had been no proper discussion of this clause at all in the House of Lords; but that was no reason why it should be dropped from the Bill. If the Government would not consent to replace it, seeing that it was in the Bill of last year, he hoped they would tell the Committee the reason why. It was a very important provision, and would vest in the new Minister the rights of patronage at present vested in one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State. He had had a good deal of official experience, and he would impress upon the Committee that the man who had the patronage had the power, and that if they did not give the Scotch Minister the patronage they would emasculate him. He wanted to know why the Secretary for Scotland should not have the patronage always attached to the Minister who performed the duties of a Secretary of State? He thought it was only reasonable to give

    1155
    the Scotch Minister sufficient power and dignity to induce the people to respect the Office. He would not go further into the matter at the present moment, but he would await an explanation of the views of the Government. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, after line 19, to insert the following sub-section:—"(4.) All rights of patronage relating to offices and appointments in Scotland vested in one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State."—(Sir George Campbell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he did not understand the observation of the hon. Member that a number of the Amendments which originally appeared on the Paper had been "pooh-poohed." No Amendment had been "pooh-poohed" by the Government. All they desired was to ascertain the opinion of the Scotch Representatives on the matter, and he hoped there would be no further waste of time over collateral matters. In regard to the present Amendment, one reason why he objected to it was that he did not find it in the Bill. The hon. Member had stated that the House was sometimes very wise, and that they had shown their wisdom last year by sending down the Bill with this provision in it. But if first thoughts were the wisest, second thoughts were the best; and when the present Bill came down from the House of Lords, in their maturer wisdom of the present year, they had not included the subject of the Amendment in the Bill. But a much better reason for objecting to the Amendment was that the Secretary for Scotland would have a great deal to do, no doubt, with the question of Scotch education, but this patronage principally related to the administration of the law. The last clause of the Bill provided that—
    "Nothing in this Act contained shall prejudice or interfere with any rights, powers, privileges, or duties vested in or imposed on the Lord Advocate by virtue of any Act of Parliament or custom."
    The Lord Advocate was one of the great Officers of State for Scotland, and he ought to remain so, and it was not intended by the creation of the Secretary for Scotland in any way to interfere with
    1156
    the legitimate functions of the Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate was the head of the law in Scotland, and was practically the adviser of the Secretary of State, and no appointment was ever made by the Secretary of State which was not recommended by the Lord Advocate. He stood, practically, as far as Scotch legal patronage was concerned, precisely on the same footing as the Lord Chancellor in England. The appointments were nominally made by the Secretary of State, but really by the Lord Advocate, who knew the persons best fitted for them, whereas the Secretary of State really could know nothing about them without consulting the Lord Advocate. He considered that he had given a sufficient reason why this patronage should remain vested in the Lord Advocate and should not be transferred to the Secretary for Scotland.
    MR. PRESTON BRUCEsaid, he could not recommend his hon. Friend to go to a division on this Amendment, not because he did not think it an important one, but because he thought it so very important that it was impossible to expect that it would be accepted at this stage. He could not help feeling, however, that the Scotch Secretary, as appointed under the Bill, might, after all, turn out to be not so effective a Minister as the people of Scotland generally expected. If that was the case, it would be on account of the absence of a clause of this kind, and the very distinct saving there was of all the rights of the Lord Advocate, because the effect of that was to leave the Lord Advocate in relation with the Home Secretary and not with the Secretary for Scotland. So long as that was the case, he was afraid that in questions of great importance the Scotch Secretary would not be able to stand against the combined influence of the Lord Advocate and the Home Secretary. However, he thought this was much too large a question to be raised at this stage; and he thought, if the Bill was to go through at all, it must be accepted, substantially, in the form in which it had been presented.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he was inclined to think that the advice of his hon. Friend tendered in so friendly a spirit was judicious advice. He confessed that he entertained the fears of his hon. Friend, and was afraid that the

    1157
    privileges of the new Secretary of State might be too much lopped off, and that it might turn out that he was merely an odd man to do a few odd jobs. He would not stand further in the way, but would withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    MR. C. S. PARKERsaid, that before parting with the clause he wished to put a question to the Government. The policy of the clause was to vest in the new Secretary for Scotland the powers set forth in the First Schedule. Had it been considered if there were any powers and duties of an administrative kind belonging to Sheriffs that ought to be transferred under the Bill, particularly with reference to the supervision of bye-laws submitted under the Roads and Bridges Act and the Locomotives Regulation Act? If they would refer to the Locomotives Act, they would find that the bye-laws were made by the Local Authority, and had to be confirmed by the Secretary of State; but if they would look to the Roads and Bridges Act, they would find that the bye-laws were confirmed by the Sheriff of the county. He saw no good reason, when they were appointing a new Officer, why they should not give him the general supervision of the bye-laws made by the Road Authorities as well as of those affecting locomotives. There was one point which had attracted a good deal of public attention lately—namely, the bye-laws for the regulation of bicycles and tricycles. It was inconvenient to have local bye-laws differing in different counties. In some counties, the Sheriff had revised the bye-laws in a way to give satisfaction to the persons concerned. In other cases, bye-laws had been issued which had created a good deal of dissatisfaction. In England there was but one Revising Authority—the Local Government Board. Why should not the Scotch Secretary have similar authority for all Scotland? He had no wish to press the matter unduly, but he would like to have some assurance that the matter would be considered.
    MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, he would like to ask a question in regard to a similar point in connection with the
    1158
    Board of Trade. The Board of Trade had certain powers in regard to foreshores. Would it not be right that those powers should be exercised by the new Minister for Scotland instead of by the Board of Trade?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, that in reply to the question of the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Parker), the right of making bye-laws was always vested in the Local Authority. It had never struck him that the powers of inferior officers should be transferred to a superior Office such as was to be formed under this Bill. He would, however, look into the matter; but he could hold out no hope of any concession in regard to the point.
    MR. C. S. PARKERasked if there was any reason for putting bye-laws for locomotives under one authority, and bye-laws for general traffic under another?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he thought there might be. In the discussion upon the Roads and Bridges Bill that had been clearly shown. With regard to the Board of Trade, he would ask his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Board to answer the question.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)said, the Board of Trade held the powers as to foreshores under the Crown Lands Act of 1853, and it would be impossible to transfer them without repealing that Act.
    MR. BRYCEremarked, that the powers in regard to foreshores had been managed in a much more liberal spirit by the Board of Trade than by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests; and he hoped the Government would not make any alteration.
    MR. BUCHANANasked whether the duties of the Board of Trade with regard to the Commissioners of Northern Lights should not be transferred to the new Secretary?
    [No reply.]
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 6 (Secretary to be Vice President of Scotch Education Department).
    MR. PRESTON BRUCEsaid, he would not detain the Committee for more than two or three minutes in moving his Amendment to leave out the

    1159
    words "Vice President," in order to insert "President." He would simply explain briefly what the effect of the Amendment would be. As he understood the Bill, it really made the Secretary for Scotland a Vice President of the Council, and placed him in precisely the same relation to the Lord President as the Vice President of the Council the right hon. Member for Mid Lincoln (Mr. E. Stanhope) was in now. That was a position in some degree subordinate to the Lord President. The object of his Amendment, to substitute "President" for "Vice President," was to remove that position of subordination, and to make the Scotch Secretary an independent responsible Minister for Education in Scotland, exercising all the patronage, presiding over his own Department, and having an official staff in his own Office. He wished to remind hon. Members that the Childers Committee particularly condemned the present management of education in this respect, on account of the divided responsibility; but by this Bill they were again setting up a divided responsibility as regarded education in Scotland. They would, at the same time, only partially transfer the education of Scotland to the new Scotch Department. That was a very important matter, because he admitted that there might be certain dangers connected with the separation of Scottish education; but, on the other hand, there were certain advantages which he hoped would follow from the separation. He was afraid that a partial separation might result in their failing to get those advantages which they anticipated from the change. He did not understand, from the remarks of the Home Secretary, that the right hon. Gentleman was going to reject this Amendment on the ground of the impossibility, suggested in "another place," of there being two Presidents of the Council. It was well known that the President of the Board of Trade had been created an independent official by an Order in Council. As an Order in Council created a Committee of Council for Trade, with an independent President, he did not think there would be any difficulty in providing that the Secretary for Scotland should be President of the Scotch Education Department, as was suggested by the Amendment. He therefore begged
    1160
    to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 31, to leave out the words "Vice President," and insert the word "President."—(Mr. Preston Bruce.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'Vice President' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. MARJORIBANKSdesired to say a few words in support of the Amendment of his hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had said just now that there were three parties in Scotland in regard to this matter—one party who desired that Scotch education should remain in the hands of the Vice President of the Council, as was suggested by the right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair); another party who went the whole way with the hon. Member for Fife (Mr. Preston Bruce); and a third party who went in for the mean between the two extremes adopted by the Bill as it at present stood—namely, that the new Minister should be Vice President of the Scotch Council of Education. He quite admitted that there might be a party in Scotland who thought with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) that Scotch education should be left, as at present, in the hands of the Vice President of the Council, and a large party who desired to see the whole of education given to the new Minister; but there was no party prepared, to adopt the mean of giving the Scotch Secretary merely a limited control over education as this Bill proposed. He felt sure that if the Government did not give the new Minister sufficient control over Scotch education, they would find that the bottom would be knocked out of the tub altogether, and they would fall through. The people of Scotland were determined to have a Minister who would have full and complete control of Scotch education; and if they only got a small portion of what they desired under the Bill, there would very soon be an agitation for conferring increased powers upon the new Scotch Minister. The opposition to giving complete control over Scotch education to the new Scotch Minister came only from two quarters. One was the Departments,

    1161
    He believed he was right in saying that the Home Office did not, on the whole, regard the Bill with very great favour; and he certainly knew that the Education Department objected strongly to this part of the Bill. ["No!"] Well, the late Education Department had done so. It was like a master of foxhounds, who, when he once got hold of a large tract of country—whether he could hunt it or not he did not care a bit; but nothing would induce him to give it up. That was very much the case here. The Education Department had charge of Scotch Education, and they intended to keep it, in order to aggrandize and make strong their own Department. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) let the cat out of the bag last night. It was really a fight between those who desired to see a strong Scotch Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), who was lately at the head of the Education Department. There were certain persons who thought that if Scotch education were taken away, the Minister who it was proposed should succeed to the functions of Vice President of the Council would not get Cabinet rank. That was the moving spirit of the matter, as was apparent from the evidence before the Committee in regard to Scotland. If anyone would take the trouble to go through the evidence in regard to Scotland, he would find that there were great and important differences between English and Scotch education. Indeed, Sir Francis Sandford went so far as to say that it was impossible to carry out the system of Scotch education at all unless there were a separate set of Scotch officials to do the work. The right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), in a speech which he delivered in 1879, said much the same thing. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that Scotch education was far ahead of English education; and he said, further, that the education imparted in the three countries was totally different, and that a similar system could not by any possible means be suitable for the Three Kingdoms. They had a system of education in Scotland of which they wave very proud. It had a history which extended as far back as the 12th century. Since 1646 they had had a national sys-
    1162
    tem of education, and what they wanted to do was to keep that national system of education. What they felt was that Scotland had been "cabined, cribbed, and confined" by being tied up with England since 1872. They had been like a long-legged man tied up with a short-legged man in a trowser race. They had been kept back; and if England had improved her position with regard to education in comparison with Scotland, it had been because Scotland had been kept back more than England had. England had got on simply through the advantage she had enjoyed of being tied up with Scotland.
    SIR LYON PLAYFAIRpointed out that the whole structure of the Bill was to create an Education Department for Scotland. If this Amendment were adopted, the effect would be that the Vice President of the Council became Vice President for England alone. But he had far more important duties to perform than the Vice President for Scotland, because the Vice President for England had charge of the Science and Art of the country, and he must send Inspectors down to Scotland to examine every school in Scotland for Art, and he hoped also for Science. Therefore, the Vice President for England had much larger powers than the Vice President for Scotland proposed to be created by this Bill. And yet they were asked, in carrying out a system of this kind, to make one Officer President of the Scotch Education Department, and the other only Vice President of the Council, with much more important and larger duties in connection with education. That was impossible, unless they altered the whole structure of the Bill. There was one thing which he wished the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to consider. Personally, he was placed in a very awkward position, because he must vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Fife (Mr. Preston Bruce). If he did not, the whole question would be determined. The retention of the words "Vice President" would determine the whole question, and, therefore, he must vote for the Amendment, in order to strike out the words "Vice President;" but he should oppose his hon. Friend most vehemently when he afterwards came to propose the insertion of the word "President." That was an awkward position, because he

    1163
    held one word to be as bad as the other.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, he was not surprised to hear his right hon. Friend object to this Amendment. The Amendment itself was a very important one. His right hon. Friend said that it would place the President of the Scotch Education Department in a higher position than the Vice President of the English Department. No doubt, it would do so; and that was what the Scotch Members intended and desired. They desired that the Scotch Education Department should be entirely separate and distinct from England, and that it should have a President, with full power and control and all the patronage belonging to it. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had said that it was desirable to postpone the real discussion until the Committee came to this Amendment. His hon. Friend had now submitted it, and he (Mr. Ramsay) supported it, because he felt that if the Secretary for Scotland were made the President of the Scotch Education Department, he would have the patronage. He should certainly vote with his hon. Friend, if, as he hoped, his hon. Friend took a division.
    THE PRESIDENT (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, the Government preferred the Bill as it at present stood. They preferred that the Scotch Minister in charge of education should be a Vice President rather than a President; but if that was objected to, they preferred that he should be a President in charge of education rather than an ex officio member. If, therefore, "Vice President" was struck out of the Bill, the Government would support the insertion of "President" as against "ex officio member."
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, that if this Amendment were carried, and the Officer was designated "President," the result would be that the Office of the President of the Scotch Education Department would be held in Edinburgh; there would be no sense in having an entirely separate Department, with patronage and everything else connected with it carried out in London, and not in Edinburgh. He believed there would be great inconvenience in the practical administration of the Office if this Amendment were adopted.
    MR. J. B. BALFOURpointed out that his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Alexander Gordon) was under a complete misapprehension; there was no intention on the part of the late Government to transfer to Edinburgh the administration of the Department. The Officer, whatever he might be designated, would remain in London. In regard to the effect that this Amendment, if carried, would have upon the general scheme of the Bill, it was right, perhaps, to distinguish between the position in which the Bill was now, and the position which it occupied in the beginning, and in the later stage, in which, rightly, he thought, an Amendment was introduced concerning the Department as distinguished from the individual. The intention, when the Bill was introduced, was to make the Secretary for Scotland the Educational Minister for Scotland; and there was not then any purpose to create a separate Department for him. It was pointed out in the House of Lords—and here he must say the Bill had been improved—that it would be desirable that the Scotch Secretary, in his capacity of Educational Minister for Scotland, should have associated with him a Department—ready made, so to say. The Earl of Rosebery accepted that suggestion; but he thought he was right in saying that the noble Earl had no idea or intention of suggesting that the Scotch Secretary should be a Vice President, because he brought down an Amendment designating him "President." It was when the noble Earl brought down that Amendment that the Lord President of the Council suggested that the word "Vice" should be introduced. Explanations were asked by the Earl of Rosebery as to what would take place by this change, and the impression was left on many minds that although the new Minister was to be designated "Vice President," he should be, in fact, Plenipotentiary ad hoc. On the third reading of the Bill in the other House there was certainly great reticence on the part of the President of the Council as to how much power the Vice President would have, and the net result of the discussion there was to show that if he were a Vice President he would be the subordinate in Sootch educational matters of the Lord President. That was certainly not the intention of a great many others who desired to see the Se-

    1165
    cretary for Scotland, by whatever name he was designated, the Educational Minister for Scotland, and the sole Educational Minister for Scotland. The prevailing opinion was that Scotch educational matters should be managed by a President of their own Department. The hon. Member for Fife (Mr. Preston Bruce) had pointed to the analogy of the Board of Trade; but he (Mr. J. B. Balfour) submitted that the proper course was to return to what was intended when the Amendment was introduced in the House of Lords, and to make this Officer in name, as it was intended he should be in substance, the Educational Minister for Scotland.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, the Scotch people wanted to have, practically speaking, a Committee of Scotch Education. The Government had never concealed their wish to meet the desires of the Scotch people; but, at the same time, he was bound to say the Government very much preferred that the new Minister should be Vice President rather than he should take the somewhat anomalous position of President of the Council, which would make two Presidents. Now, as to the peculiar position in which the Committee were at present placed. It was just as well they should understand exactly how they were going to vote. A difficulty had arisen as to how they could really obtain the sense of the Committee. The Motion before the Committee was, "That the words 'the Vice President' stand part of the Clause." Those who were favourable to the insertion of the words "ex officio member" would have to vote against the words "Vice President" standing part of the clause, and those who wished to insert "President" would have to do the same; therefore, if they did not take care, they would not arrive at what was the opinion of Scotch Members. Probably the best plan would be to take the sense of the Committee as between the words "Vice President" and "President," because it was clear that those who objected to the designation "the President," and preferred" ex officio member" or "Vice President," would have to vote in favour of the Motion, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. J. B. BALFOURobserved, that this would combine the two sections against the one.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)remarked, that that was the only way in which a proper decision might be arrived at.
    SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, that as he raised the difficulty, and it was a serious one, he thought it right to say that he should vote that the words "Vice President" stand part of the clause, and that when the clause itself was put, he would take a division in order to show the sense of the Committee.
    THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member (Mr. Preston Bruce) were to withdraw his Amendment, and move to omit the word "Vice," it would simplify matters between the three propositions.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, it did not appear to him that if the Minister were designated "President," any difficulty would arise. The Lord President of the Council would hold one Office, and the President of the Scotch Education Department another Office.
    MR. PRESTON BRUCEsaid, he would be glad to adopt the suggestion of the Chairman, and asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMAN: And then the hon. Gentleman will move to omit the word "Vice."
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANthought that then the same confusion would arise. If the question were that the word "Vice" stood part of the clause, those who were in favour of "President" and those in favour of "ex officio member" would vote against it, so that in the end precisely the same difficulty would arise.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member withdraw his Amendment?
    MR. PRESTON BRUCE: It appears there would be no advantage in my doing so. In that case, I think I had better adhere to the Amendment as it stands.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 26: Majority 47.—(Div. List, No. 270.)
    MR. J. A. CAMPBELLproposed to insert, after "Scotland," in line 34—
    "With a distinct permanent Secretary to attend to the business of Scotch Education."
    The permanent official was not to be Secretary to the Secretary for Scotland, but an officer added to the Scotch Edu-

    1167
    cation Department. Whatever view hon. Members might have formed of the proper position of the Scotch Secretary with relation to education, this Amendment must commend itself to them.
    THE PRESIDENT (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)asked if it was in Order for the hon. Member to move an Amendment imposing a charge without the money having been voted for that charge?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the House had resolved—
    "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the salary of a Secretary for Scotland and of any officials who may be appointed under the provisions of any Act of the present Session for appointing the Secretary for Scotland and of any office expenses which may be incurred thereby."
    Therefore, the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman was perfectly in Order.
    MR. J. A. CAMPBELLsaid, that his Amendment was in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee to which reference had been made. It was remarkable, however, how differently those recommendations were at times regarded. Sometimes they were not considered worthy of attention, and at other times they were regarded by the same hon. Members as conclusive upon the particular matter in hand. The recommendation of the Committee was that the Officer who was in charge of education should be the real as well as nominal Minister, and that he should have the patronage in his hands. The same Committee recommended that there should be a distinct permanent Secretary appointed for the purpose of attending to Scotch education. He thought that as hon. Members had now approved of the proposal of the Bill that the Secretary for Scotland should be Vice President of the Scotch Education Department, there should be provided a permanent Secretary. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 34, after the word "Scotland," to insert the words "with a distinct permanent Secretary to attend to the business of Scotch Education."—(Mr. J. A. Campbell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he did not dispute for a moment that the Secretary
    1168
    for Scotland should have a permanent Secretary; but he did not think it would be right to insert such a Proviso here. By the 2nd clause of the Bill, which had already been passed, it was provided that the Secretary for Scotland might appoint what officers he deemed requisite. The appointment of a permanent Secretary, therefore, should be made under the 2nd clause of the Bill.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, there was good reason for refusing to accept his hon. Friend's Amendment. The appointment of a permanent Secretary was recommended by a Committee which had no regard for the feelings or opinions of the people of Scotland, The Committee did not examine a single witness; and therefore he was surprised that his hon. Friend should seek to impose on the face of this Bill the provision that there should be a distinct permanent Secretary, independent, apparently, of the Secretary for Scotland. He (Mr. Ramsay) hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment.
    SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, the Scotch Members would lose the advantage of a distinct Scotch Education Department if they did not have a permanent Secretary of that Department. There might be a Secretary appointed to the Scotch Secretary; but this Amendment provided for the appointment of a Secretary to the Scotch Education Department, who would make it his special duty to attend to the business of the Department. Without such a Secretary the work might be done inside the English Education Department. He thought the Scotch Members would lose the whole substance of what they were contending for if they declined to accept the Amendment.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERbelieved it was a fact that the English Education Department had not a permament Secretary appointed by Statute. That being so, he could not understand why the appointment of a permanent Secretary to the Scotch Education Department should be made a statutory obligation. The Committee had decided that the Minister should be Vice President, and therefore it was rather too much to propose that there should be a statutory obligation to appoint a permanent Secretary. If the necessity arose for such an officer he

    1169
    would be appointed under the 2nd clause of the Bill.
    MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTagreed very much with what had been said by his right hon. Friend (Sir Lyon Playfair) upon this matter. They must in these matters take the best they could get, and it seemed to him that by appointing a permanent Secretary something would be done towards obtaining a distinct administration of Scotch educational matters. He took this as a test of the bona fides of the Government, though he was sure they would act in good faith. He would like to know whether it was the intention of the Government to appoint a permanent Secretary, because, if so, they might be left to make the appointment?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was the intention of the Government that what he took to be the principle of the Bill—namely, that Scotch education should be presided over by a Scotch Minister, should be carried out. The arrangements necessary to insure that would form matter for future consideration.
    DR. CAMERONthought the intentions of the Government were very clearly stated by the Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross). Referring to a previous Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman stated that the Mover of that Amendment evidently had not seen the Amendment to be proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Glasgow University (Mr. J. A. Campbell). The Government, the right hon. Gentleman said, intended to accept the Amendment. Of course, difficulties had arisen; but he thought it was evident from what the right hon. Gentleman had said that it was intended to have a permanent Secretary to attend to the business of Scotch education.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he was unwilling at that late hour of the night to divide the Committee on the clause; but before they left the subject altogether he must say that, in his opinion, the Government had got the House into most embarrassing circumstances. They had appointed a Scotch Secretary, who was an independent Officer; they
    1170
    had given him a position as Vice President of the Committee on Scotch Education, under the Lord President as the superintendent Officer, and the way in which it was done appeared to him to create a great absurdity in the matter of administration. However, he did not suppose it would be of any use dividing the Committe—it would only waste time.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I challenged the clause.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I understood that the hon. Baronet and the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) both challenged the clause when I put it the first and the second times, but that afterwards they agreed. The clause is now agreed to.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, he had a new clause to move touching the General Register House in the following terms:—
    "The Secretary shall have the control of the General Register House in Edinburgh, and of all the offices and Departments contained therein."
    This matter was one of considerable interest in Scotland; and as there were several Offices concerned in addition to some of those which were under regular control, he thought it advisable that they should have some specific management. There was the Office of the Signet, the Great Seal Office, Lord Lyon, and other Offices connected with various other Departments. He believed it would be a great advantage to the work of those Departments which were under the Treasury if they were all put under the now Official. As that Secretary was to have control of Scotch matters, he thought it would, be desirable that these Offices should be under his supervision; therefore, without detaining the Committee any longer, he would move the clause in his name.
    New Clause:—
    (General Register House.)
    "The Secretary shall have the control of the General Register House in Edinburgh, and of all the offices and Departments contained therein,"
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause be read a second time."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he hoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment. So far as the Register Office was concerned, as the hon. Member knew well enough, that was in the Schedule, although the General Register House in Edinburgh was not; but later on he intended to move to substitute it, and from the circumstances of the case he did not think it desirable that all the Departments contained therein should be included. That was his (Sir E. Assheton Cross's) opinion, and he trusted the Committee would agree with it. However, if the matter were put to a division he should go against it.
    MR. J. B. BALFOURalso opposed the clause.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. PRESTON BRUCEsaid, he desired, in the Schedule, Part I., page 4, between lines 43 and 44, to insert "Industrial Schools, 29 & 30 Vic. c. 118, 35 & 36 Vic. c. 62," and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would accept the Amendment. Surely the duty of looking after the Industrial Schools in Scotland should fall within the duties of this new Office, more especially in view of the fact that the Royal Commission on Industrial Schools had recommended that the subject of education in those schools should be brought under the Education Department. Surely it would be a very strange anomaly if the Secretary for Scotland, who had principally Home Office duties to discharge, and who had to do with Scotch education, should have nothing to do with those schools. He had not included Reformatory Schools; but, of course, if this Amendment were accepted, he should be prepared to do so.
    Amendment proposed, Schedule, Part I., page 4, between lines 43 and 44, insert "Industrial Schools, 29 & 30 Vic. c. 118, 35 & 36 Vic. c. 62."—(Mr. Preston Bruce.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he did not think that these Industrial Schools ought to be transferred to the new Secretary; but before giving a decided answer to the proposal he should pre-
    1172
    fer to have a correspondence with the Lord Advocate on the subject.
    MR. J. B. BALFOURsaid, that this matter had been carefully considered by the late Government, and a conclusion had been arrived at similar to that to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) seemed to have almost come to. One of the main considerations had been in regard to the important function of clerking.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, he wished to have an explanation with regard to Amendments on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross)—namely, Schedule, Part III., page 5, between lines 11 and 12, insert,—"Assessor of Railways and Canals, 17 & 18 Vic. c. 91, s. 29." Schedule, Part III., page 5, line 6, leave out "Register Office," and insert "General Register House in Edinburgh." Schedule, Part III., page 5, line 18, after "emoluments," insert "and with the consent of the Secretary, to regulate establishment." This appeared to be the part of the Schedule which transferred the Register House to the new Secretary. It appeared to him, so far as he could understand it, that they were rather restricting the control given to the Secretary under the Bill. Of course, the Treasury could reserve to itself the right to say what salaries were to be paid in every Department. He understood that the result of the Amendments of the Home Secretary would be that the Secretary for Scotland, instead of being the first motive power in regulating the establishments, would only have a consultative voice in the matter. The power of the new Secretary over the establishments by these Amendments would be lessened. He should like to have some explanation on the point.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)tendered an explanation.
    MR. J. B. BALFOURsaid, he quite agreed that when they came to deal with a purely Treasury matter like the salaries which should be paid the matter should be dealt with in the Bill as they had framed it. But if by the words "to regulate establishment" was meant that the Treasury was to retain the power of saying how many officers were to be

    1173
    appointed, or of pointing out the duties they were to discharge, he should think it would be a mistake. It would be a mistake, because he knew that there had been a great deal of difference of opinion upon this question. It had been thought too much power had been conferred on the Treasury by the Lord Clerk Register Act of 1879. Many people thought that too much power had been given to the Treasury, and would be averse to see their power extend beyond the question of regulating the salaries.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS): I will not proceed with the Amendments now, but will postpone them until Report. In the meantime, I may have an opportunity of consulting with the Lord Advocate.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman withdraw his Amendments now?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS): Yes.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the Amendments be withdrawn?
    Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  SEA FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL [Lords.]
  (Baron Henry de Worms, Secretary to the Board of Trade.)
  SEA FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL [Lords.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 29th July.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 2 (Application).
    MR. WILLIAMSONsaid, he begged to move the Amendment standing on the Paper in his name, in page 1, line 10, to leave out from "Scotland" to end of Clause.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 10, to leave out from the word "Scotland" to end of Clause.—(Mr. Williamson.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)said, he could not accept the Amendment, and pointed out that this part of the Bill was according to the Act of 1883.
    MR. WILLIAMSONsaid, that the Act in question applied to the lettering of vessels, and also with reference to the Renal Clauses of the Fisheries Act. He had not thought it necessary to explain what he meant.
    MR. J. B. BALFOURsaid, he understood the proposal of the hon. Gentleman was to leave out the words which dealt with the exclusive limits of the British Islands and which defined the scope of the Act. No doubt, there were some parts which should not be excluded for certain purposes—that was to say, there were some parts of the Act which should apply outside the three-mile limit, in matters connected with trawling for instance. But the Amendment affected the whole scope of the Bill. He saw that the hon. Member opposite (Baron Henry De Worms) had an Amendment to a similar effect on the Paper.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): No; my Amendment is in line 11, and not in line 10.
    MR. J. B. BALFOUR: Then I agree with the hon. Member.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 11, to leave out from the word "Scotland" to end of Clause.—(The Secretary, Baron Henry De Worms.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he had a Notice on the Paper to move to add to the Clause, after line 12, the following words:—
    "Provided always, That damages done to nets, lines, gear, or boats by any mode of fishing in any part of the sea beyond the exclusive fishery limits of the British islands, may be prosecuted by order of the Fishery Board in such Sheriff Court as may be most convenient for the trial."
    He had been told, however, that the Fisheries Act of 1883 provided for damage of this kind; and, on that understanding, he should not press his proposal on the Committee.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 3 agreed to.
    Clause 4 (Fishery Board may make bye-laws prohibiting or regulating trawling within defined areas).
    MR. WILLIAMSONsaid, he desired to move, in line 18, to leave out the following words:—

    1175
    "And within the exclusive Fishery limits of the British Islands."
    He knew this was going outside the scope of the Bill; but they also knew that there was a great deal of conflict between trawlers and line fishermen outside the territorial waters, and if they regulated these matters within the limits, seeing that conflicts might as readily occur outside, he did not see why their regulations should not extend beyond those limits. He was perfectly satisfied that the clause as it stood would not satisfy the line fishermen who were liable to have their business interfered with by the trawlers. As to the difficulty of dealing with the fishermen outside their territorial waters, he would point out that the law of this country could follow a British ship all over the world and say she should not do damage to her neighbours. This was a question affecting the destruction of fishermen's gear. He would not take up any further time in explaining the Amendment, but would merely express his sincere hope that it would be accepted.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 18, to leave out the words "and within the exclusive fishery limits of the British Islands."—(Mr. Williamson.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)said, he was afraid he could not agree to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman, and he thought the hon. Member himself had given sufficient grounds why it could not be accepted when he declared that it was not within the scope of the Bill. It would be absurd to go beyond the three-mile limit.
    MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, he should like to say a word upon this Amendment of his hon. Friend, and at the same time to appeal to other hon. Gentlemen who had Amendments to the clause down on the Paper. He (Mr. Marjoribanks) had been a Member of the Royal Commission on whose recommendations this Bill had been framed. They had considered this question most carefully, and had come to the conclusion that the utmost to which they could go was to recommend that the Scotch Fishery Board should have power to pro-
    1176
    hibit trawling within the three-mile limit.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he objected to the hon. Member anticipating Amendments that were to come on afterwards.
    MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, he begged the hon. and gallant Member's pardon; but, as a matter of fact, the point was raised by the hon. Member for the St. Andrew's District (Mr. Williamson), who proposed to strike out from this clause all reference to territorial waters, and to leave the Act to apply to trawling, not only about their own shores, but in the North Sea and in the Atlantic. The Commission had considered the matter very carefully, and had thought it absolutely necessary to give the Scotch Fishery Board power and option to put a stop to trawling where they thought proper within territorial waters. That was a power which the Irish Fishery Inspectors had at present, and one which was exercised in a similar way in other countries. In France, for instance, trawling was prohibited within the three-mile limit unless a licence were given to the contrary. In parts of Germany there was a similar law; also in Denmark. Norway and Spain had no regulation of the sort. He thought they had better adhere to the clause as it stood in the Bill, and not attempt to go further.
    MR. ASHERthought the exact meaning of this Amendment was somewhat overlooked. He desired to explain the position he took in regard to the Amendment, because he quite agreed with the Amendments which had been put down for excluding these words from several other clauses. There seemed to be one fatal objection to the exclusion of these words from this clause, and that was that they would be legislating upon a matter as to which the British Legislature had no power. This was not a clause dealing with the destruction of fishing gear, but it was a clause limited to the prohibition by the Scotch Fishery Board of trawling or other destructive modes of fishing. It was perfectly certain that the Scotch Fishery Board could not exercise that power except within the territorial waters. If the words were struck out, as proposed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Williamson), the clause would be made applicable to the

    1177
    sea outside the territorial waters in regard to which the Legislature of this country had not exclusive power.
    MR. WILLIAMSONasked leave to withdraw the Amendment. He had thought it right to propose it, as he had a fishing constituency.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDON SIR ALEXANDER GORDON moved to omit "fishing," in line 26, and insert "trawling." He did so, because the powers which it was proposed to give to the Fishery Board by this clause were very extensive, and were believed by fishermen to be very arbitrary. The men were afraid of the extent to which the powers might be exercised. The object of all this legislation was the protection of fishermen within the three-mile limit, or, in other words, within the territorial waters. The fishermen had complained of the damage done by trawlers, and the complaints had reached such a point that the late Government appointed a Commission to inquire into them. The Commissioners took a great deal of trouble, sitting for two years, and they presented a Report, and the result of that Report was this Bill. But the fishermen felt that by giving the Board this power they would have the power of stopping fishing on every ground in any area they thought proper. Now, if they restricted the fishing within a certain area, say, of 20 or 30 miles, they took away at once the whole means of livelihood of all the fishermen within that area. There was no provision for any compensation to the fishermen who might be deprived of their means of livelihood; and, therefore, what he proposed to do was to alter the word "fishing" to that of "trawling." That would enable the Board to stop trawling wherever they thought proper under the powers of the Act; but it would not give them power to stop fishing, by which so many men obtained their livelihood. This Amendment was so obviously just that he hoped it would be accepted by the Committee.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 26, to leave out the word "fishing," and insert the word "trawling."—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'fishing' stand part of the Clause."
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)said, he could not accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The Commission was not directed against any particular kind of fishing, but was appointed to inquire into the general effects of fishing or trawling. It appeared to him that if they were to agree to the Amendment proposed, they would go directly against the principal object of the Bill.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONremarked, that the principal object of the Bill was to protect the in-shore fishermen against trawlers. That was the sole object of this legislation, and the fishermen would be very much disappointed if some such Amendment as this were not accepted. No fisherman could be injured if the power were taken from the Board to stop fishing. He was sorry the hon. Gentleman could not agree to the proposal.
    Amendment negatived.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, the next Amendment was a very important one, and one which he hoped the hon. Gentleman would be able to agree to. It was to the effect that the bye-laws which the Fishery Board were empowered to make by this Bill should not allow trawling by any trawler with a beam of greater length than 12 feet. It was trawlers with huge beams of from 30 to 40 and 50 feet long which did all the damage; and, therefore, if the prohibition he suggested were made, the fishermen round the coast would have secured all they wanted. The hon. Member for Ross-shire (Mr. Munro-Ferguson) had an Amendment to the same effect. The hon. Member was largely interested in fishermen, the same as he (Sir Alexander Gordon) was. Between them they had more fishermen under their observation than any other two Members in that House. Now, what the fishermen asked to be protected from were the huge machines which came sweeping the whole floor of the sea, and did thereby so much damage. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks), addressing his constituents on Saturday last, said—
    "As regards the exhaustion of fishing grounds by trawlers they had the clearest evidence, and he did not think there could be the least doubt that in the Firth of Forth the

    1179
    number of fish had been decidedly and considerably reduced by the action of trawlers in inshore waters. There had been a marked diminution of fish, and the Commissioners recommended in regard to that that the Scotch Fishery Board should have the power entirely to prohibit trawling in the territorial waters in the United Kingdom."
    All he (Sir Alexander Gordon) asked was that that House should do themselves what they empowered the Fishery Board to do, because if they did it here it would be done. The Fishery Board would find great difficulty in giving any order to that effect, owing to the powerful influence the trawlers possessed. The trawlers were a wealthy body, the fishermen were poor; the trawlers were to be found in towns, and the fishermen all round the coast, the latter having few people to speak for them. He asked the Committee to do what he suggested, as an effectual means of protecting the fishermen from injury.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 28, after second "bye-laws," to add—"Provided, That such bye-laws shall not sanction any fishing, within the exclusive fishery limits of Scotland, with a trawl having a beam of a greater length than twelve feet, and all trawling, within the above named limits, with a trawl having a beam of a greater length than twelve feet is hereby declared to be illegal after the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-six."—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)said, it was quite impossible to agree to this Amendment. While by his proposal the hon. and gallant Gentleman would do justice to a certain class of fishermen, he would do great injustice to others. The object of the Bill was not, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman stated, to do away with trawling, but to ascertain what kinds of fishing were injurious. They were not sure of the amount of damage done by trawling, and therefore it was not right they should limit the length of beam.
    MR. ASHERsaid, this Amendment raised the very important question whether trawling should or should not be abolished within the territorial limits. There was no doubt that it was within the power of the Legislature of this country to entirely prohibit trawling
    1180
    within the territorial waters. He had said outside the House, and he desired to repeat inside the House, that, in his opinion, it would have been a more satisfactory settlement of this matter if the Trawling Commission had dealt with this question in a bolder form, and had recommended the abolition of trawling altogether within the territorial waters. He had a very strong belief that that prohibition would not in any way interfere with the successful prosecution of trawling, and the adequate supply of fish, through the means of trawling, to the markets of the country; and, on the other hand, he had a strong belief that it would have prevented great injustice and injury, which it was desirable to obviate, as regarded line fishing in many estuaries and bays from which he thought trawlers should be altogether excluded. But whilst these were his views on the question, he was bound to look at this matter from a practical point of view. At this period of the Session they were practically in this position—that they must accept the Bill substantially as it stood, or make up their minds not to have it at all. Looking to the terms in which the Royal Commission on Trawling reported, he could not say he entertained any hope of being able to carry his views about the prohibition of trawling within the territorial waters to any successful issue; and, therefore, regarding the Bill, as he did, as a step in the right direction, and believing that it was calculated to be beneficial in its results, he did not propose to press his views, but to accept the clause as it stood. But there was one matter which he thought it was right to bring forward. This clause proposed to impose a very onerous and difficult duty upon the Scotch Fishery Board—namely, that of investigating and deciding within what portions of the sea within the territorial waters trawling or other injurious methods of fishing ought to be prohibited. It was quite evident that that was a matter which could not be decided by the Scotch Fishery Board without elaborate investigation; and, in his opinion, a serious objection to the Bill was that it contained no provision for supplying the Scotch Fishery Board with the necessary funds for enabling them to discharge this duty imposed upon them by Clause 4. He was quite aware it was not within the competency

    1181
    of a private Member to propose the introduction of a clause to rectify this defect; but he alluded to the matter now in order to point out to the Government the necessity of keeping this fact in view. He hoped the Government would, by arrangement with the Treasury, see their way to authorize the Scotch Fishery Board to undertake the investigations necessary under this clause, and to provide the Board with the necessary funds for the purpose. He trusted that before this clause passed the Committee would receive an assurance from some Member of the Government that the point to which he had referred would not be lost sight of.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. WILLIAMSONproposed, in line 28, after second "bye-laws" to insert—
    "It shall also be in the power of the Fishery Board, subject to confirmation as hereinafter mentioned, to prohibit steam trawlers from trawling at night, between sunset and sunrise, on fishing grounds or banks largely frequented by line or drift net fishing vessels, during such time or such part of the year as the Board may consider expedient."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)said, he could not agree to the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)proposed to insert, in page 2, after line 7—
    "The Secretary of State shall allow any person to make a representation for his interest against the confirmation of any bye-law, on a notice of objection being given by such person to the Fishery Board within the said period of one month, and may, if he see fit, allow parties to be heard thereon."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURconsidered that by this Amendment the hon. Gentleman was striking a great blow at the authority of the Fishery Board.
    MR. WILLIAMSONsaid, that, undoubtedly, very onerous and delicate duties were imposed on the Fishery Board by this Bill. He was obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Elgin (Mr. Asher) for having brought those duties before the notice of the Commit-
    1182
    tee; and all he could say was that the Fishery Board would do their best to discharge them faithfully and well. He did not see that any reasonable objection could be raised to this Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    On Motion of the SECRETARY to the Board (Baron Henry De Worms), the following Amendment made:—Page 2, line 22, to leave out "by any officer of the Fishery Board."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 5 (Steam trawlers fishing off Scotland to have letters and numbers painted on the quarter).
    MR. WILLIAMSONproposed to omit from line 28, "and within the exclusive fishery limits of the British Islands." The hon. Gentleman explained that this Amendment referred to the painting of letters on vessels.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 28, to leave out the words "and within the exclusive fishery limits of the British Islands."—(Mr. Williamson.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. MARJORIBANKShoped the Government would consent to the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. MARJORIBANKSproposed to insert, after "ground," in line 34, "on the funnel twelve inches from the top, and." He said, that the rule with regard to sailing vessels was that they had to paint numbers and letters on the bow and also on the sails. There was no doubt that the numbers being marked on the sails were very distinctive emblems seen at a considerable distance. The steam trawlers had no sails, therefore he thought the numbers should be painted on the funnels. It would be a great advantage to fishermen, inasmuch as it would help them to identify vessels which did them damage.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 34, after the word "ground," to insert the words "on the funnel twelve inches from the top, and."—(Mr. Marjoribanks.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. WILLIAMSONproposed to insert, after "officers," in page 3, line 5, "or officers of the Fishery Board."
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 5, after the word "officers," to insert the words "or officers of the Fishery Board."—(Mr. Williamson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)opposed the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. WILLIAMSONsaid, he must insist that the point he had just raised should be considered; if it was not, he would move that the clause be rejected. He would like to know whether the Board of Trade meant to put the Sea Fishery officers under the orders of the Fishery Board, because at present they were not? The men who attended to the numbering and lettering on the Coast of Scotland were the Fishery Board officers. If the Board of Trade would omit the section, all would be right.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)said, he would be very happy to consider the matter by Report.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 6 (Fishery Board may require statistics of sea fisheries).
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONproposed to leave out "fishermen," in page 3, line 6, and insert "fish salesmen." He wished to impress upon the Committee the fact that very great labour was entailed on the fishermen by the keeping account of all the fish they caught. A very large meeting of fishermen was held recently at Stornoway, and, amongst several objections to this Bill, this was particularly mentioned. It was pointed out that, after having been one or two nights out, the men came in very tired; but, before they could seek rest, they had to take an account of the fish they had caught. The duty was very irksome to them. He would like the hon. Gentleman (Baron Henry De Worms) to explain whether he intended an account to be kept of the fish caught in territorial water or in off-shore water, or whether separate accounts were to be kept of fish caught in territorial water and of
    1184
    that caught in off-shore water? He had never heard that the Returns now presented to Parliament from time to time were incorrect or insufficient; but he thought that, if any more were wanted, they ought to be got from the persons who cured the fish or from those who sold it.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 6, to leave out the word "fishermen," and insert the words "fish salesmen."—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'fishermen' stand part of the Clause."
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)said, the Amendment would defeat one of the principal objects of the Bill, and, therefore, he could not accept it.
    MR. R. W. DUFFhoped his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Alexander Gordon) would not press the Amendment. At the Conferences at the Fisheries Exhibition, it was universally admitted that, in statistical information, we were behind other nations. The Scotch Fishery Board had succeeded in getting much better statistics concerning fisheries than were got in any other part of the Kingdom, and this clause would assist them in getting still bettor statistics.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. R. W. Duff) talked about fishing; but he did not know much about it. By this clause they imposed a very irksome duty upon Scotch fishermen, a duty which was not imposed on English fishermen. The fishermen of Scotland asked very earnestly that Parliament would not pass this clause; therefore, he could not withdraw the Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    On Motion of Mr. Asher, the following Amendments made:—Page 3, after line 7, insert "and other person belonging to British sea fishing boats, and all;" line 8, leave out "and other person."
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR moved, in page 3, line 17, after the word "returns," to insert "or compilation thereof as may be agreed upon with the Board of Trade." He hoped the Secretary to the Board of Trade would assent to the Amendment, as a compilation prepared by competent authorities would be very useful.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 17, after the word "returns," to insert the words "or compilation thereof as may be agreed upon with the Board of Trade."—(General Sir George Balfour.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)thought it would be perfectly useless to do what was suggested.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: Can you tell me what use they make of them at present?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): I do not know.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: You could get Reports from 50 places.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONwished to know whether the hon. Gentleman could not promise to let them have these Returns published by the Board of Trade during the herring fishery season? If Returns were to be made at all, they might as well be made use of; and it would be to the advantage of the fish curers if the Board of Trade would once a week, during the fishery season, publish the Returns which their officers made. It would be of very great use to the fish curers, who could arrange their sales accordingly. He would be glad if the hon. Gentleman would bear this in mind at the next herring fishery season.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)said, he would be very glad to see what could be done in the matter.
    MR. WILLIAMSONsaid, it would be quite impossible to get the Returns from the Fishery Board every week, or even every month. What the Fishery Board did was to prepare the Returns annually.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, there would be no difficulty whatever. He knew the Fishery Board could not publish them; but they could return them to the Board of Trade, who could publish them without any difficulty.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURwas willing to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 7 (Sea fishery officer may award compensation under ten pounds).
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS) moved, in page 8, at beginning of clause, to insert—
    "Every case under the Sea Fisheries Acts may be prosecuted in any sheriff court which the Fishery Board may declare, by a notice under the hand of the Secretary to the Board to the Procurator Fiscal of such sheriff court, to be the court nearest to the spot where the offence was committed, or otherwise the most convenient for the trial of the case."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONwished to have the closing words of the Amendment made clear. Did "most convenient" bear reference to the convenience of the prosecutor, or the convenience of the person accused? The convenience of the person accused ought to be more considered than the convenience of anybody else?
    MR. J. B. BALFOURsaid, there must be a balance of convenience.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked whether it was not the custom that all these crimes were tried at the nearest Court?
    MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, the ordinary practice was that all these cases were tried at the nearest possible place to the place where the offence was committed.
    Amendment agreed to.
    On Motion of Mr. ASHER the following Amendment made:—Page 3, line 23, after "person," insert "belonging to a British sea fishing boat."
    MR. ASHER MR. ASHER moved, in page 3, line 24, to leave out "and within the exclusive fishery limits of the British Islands." He pointed out that, although it was necessary to prevent the provisions of the Bill from coming in conflict with the International Convention, the section would not answer the purpose it was intended to serve, unless it was made applicable to cases of damage to fishing gear which occurred outside their territorial waters.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 24, to leave out the words "and within the exclusive fishery limits of the British Islands."—(Mr. Asher.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)said, it was impossible to accept this Amendment, for, by accepting it, they would be doing that which was contrary to the Act of 1883. Foreigners could only be dealt with when they came within, our three-mile limit. If this Amendment were made the effect would be to extend the operation of the clause beyond the three-mile limit.
    MR. ASHERsaid, his first Amendment, which had been accepted, limited the clause to the case of a person belonging to the British sea fishing trade. The effect of both Amendments, taken together, would be that where damage was done to fishing gear, either within or without the three-mile limit, by anybody belonging to the home fishing trade, then the fishery officer could award the compensation. No doubt, if the section applied to foreign boats it would be against the Convention and beyond the power of the Legislature; but we had jurisdiction over our own fishing boats outside the territorial waters just as well as within them.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. ASHER MR. ASHER moved, in page 3, line 30, after the word "writing," to insert the words—
    "To make such examination or inquiry into the said complaint as he deems necessary, and."
    He said these were merely formal words in order to make the language of the clause more distinct.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 30, after the word "writing," to insert the words "to make such examination or inquiry into the said complaint as he deems necessary, and."—(Mr. Asher.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. MARJORIBANKS MR. MARJORIBANKS moved, in page 3, line 31, after the word "heard," to insert—
    "To award damages to the complainer to an amount not exceeding ten pounds, and to issue a certificate to that effect, and such certificate shall he final, and shall entitle the complainer to obtain, by action in the Small Debt Court, a decree for the sum specified therein; but when the amount of damage so inquired into shall exceed ten pounds, it shall be lawful for the sea fishery officer."
    He thought this Amendment was one of very great importance. It would make a provision, which was included in the Bill
    1188
    as drawn by the late Lord Advocate, and as introduced into the House of Lords, carrying out one of the strongest recommendations of the Report of the Royal Commission that British sea fishery officers should be made a sort of floating magistracy. The men whom the Select Committee had in their eye were those commanders of Her Majesty's cruisers who were detailed for fishery purposes, and the recommendation was made with the object of securing to the injured fishermen as brief and easy a remedy, both for himself and the party charged with injuring him, as could possibly be obtained. The easiest way of doing that was to give to the British sea fishery officers power to deal with the eases summarily where only a small amount of damage was concerned. Those officers had now very considerable powers, of search, of examination upon oath, and in many other respects. They had even now powers to arbitrate, and decide those cases where the parties on both sides consented, and the Amendment would not give them any very great addition to their powers. It would, be of the greatest advantage in keeping order between the different classes of fishermen on their coasts.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 31, after the word "heard," to insert the words "to award damages to the complainer to an amount not exceeding ten pounds, and to issue a certificate to that effect, and such certificate shall be final, and shall entitle the complainer to obtain, by action in the Small Debt Court, a decree for the sum specified therein; but when the amount of damage so inquired into shall exceed ten pounds, it shall be lawful for the sea fishery officer."—(Mr. Marjoribanks.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. ASHERhoped the Government would accept the Amendment. It would be of considerable importance in dealing with one of the greatest grievances which the line fishermen experienced at the hands of the trawlers. There were a number of cases where the men would rather suffer damage than incur the expense of prosecution, and the Amendment would provide a short, summary method of recovering the damage where it had been sustained. The fishery officers were well qualified to assess the damage in such oases. He regarded the proposal as one of the most import-

    1189
    tant provisions in the whole Bill, and he hoped it would be accepted.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONalso hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.
    LORD ELCHOalso supported the Amendment, as he believed the fishermen felt very keenly about it.
    MR. PRESTON BRUCEsupported the Amendment, which would only put the Bill back into the form in which it was originally drawn, and satisfy one of the recommendations of the Select Committee.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)was sorry he could not accept the Amendment. The proposal was struck out after discussion in the House of Lords. If it were re-inserted it would restore the Bill to its original position; and, in point of fact, it would make the fishery officer a judge. He was astonished to hear the hon. and learned Member the late Solicitor General for Scotland (Mr. Asher) advocating such a very serious departure from the ordinary administration of the law. It was impossible for the Government to accept the proposal.
    MR. R. W. DUFFwished to know whether the hon. Gentleman (Baron Henry De Worms) would consider what the meaning of "sea fishery officer" was under the Bill, for there was some confusion about that? There seemed to be some impression that the "sea fishery officer" would be an officer under the Fishery Board; but under the Bill he would be an officer belonging to the Coastguard. Some confusion arose on this point in "another place," and that was the reason why the proposal was not accepted there.
    MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, that under the Act of 1883 "sea fishery officers" were divisional officers of the Coastguard, commanders of Her Majesty's cruisers for deep sea fishery purposes, and officers appointed by the Board of Trade.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)could not depart from the opinion he had expressed. He did not think these officers were legally qualified to act as judges.
    MR. MUNRO-FERGUSONhoped the Amendment would be accepted. It was of the utmost importance to the fishermen that they should have some
    1190
    such simple and easy and expeditious method of recovering slight damages.
    MR. WILLIAMSONsaid, the officers might be looked upon as arbiters in dispute—not judges.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 39: Majority 24.—(Div. List, No. 271.)
    On Motion of the Secretary to the BOARD (Baron Henry De Worms), the following verbal Amendments made:—Page 3, line 27, leave out the word "said sea;" line 37, leave out the word "officer;" line 37, after "fishery," insert "Board;" page 4, line 1, after "evidence," insert "on the question of the damage."
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS) moved, in page 4, line 2, after the word "cause," to insert the words—
    "And in any case in which the damage, as found by the sheriff before whom the case comes for trial, shall exceed twelve pounds, appeal shall he competent as in ordinary causes before the sheriff court."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
    Clause 10 (Transfer of powers of Board of Trade).
    MR. WILLIAMSON MR. WILLIAMSON moved, in page 4, line 21, to insert the following subsection:—
    "(d.) The Board of Trade is also hereby authorized to delegate to the Fishery Board, for such time as it may see fit, powers to allocate, let, and manage the foreshores belonging to the Grown, or any portions of the same, for the special purpose of improving and extending oyster and mussel fisheries and bait beds, any rents collected to be accounted for to the Board of Trade, and the powers delegated to be exercised subject to the confirmation and approval of the said Board."
    He said this was merely a civil request to the Board of Trade to allow the Fishery Board to do part of their work.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): I cannot accept the Amendment.
    MR. WILLIAMSON: Then I withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS) moved, after Clause 7, to insert the following clause:——
    (Procedure when person injured claims damages.)
    "Sub-section (1) of Clause fifteen of 'The Sea Fisheries Act, 1883,' is hereby repealed.
    "Where any offence is committed, as set forth in Clause seven hereof, it shall be competent for the person whose property has been injured to give notice in writing to the person committing such offence, and to the sheriff clerk, that at the trial of said offence the sheriff will be called upon to consider and dispose of the question of damages, and, in such case, the evidence led at said trial shall be evidence for the consideration of the sheriff on the question of damages, and the sheriff, at the conclusion of the said trial, shall proceed according to the provisions of Clause seven hereof, and shall, if oral evidence is to be taken on the question of damages, allow the accused person to be examined as a witness on the question of damages."
    New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. ASHERsaid, there were three clauses which had been placed upon the Paper upon this subject, and the difference between them was very much a matter of drafting. He himself had put down a clause; but after carefully considering that of the hon. Gentleman he should not press his own. However, there might be serious difficulties in the way of working the clause now proposed if its exact words were retained, because he doubted very much whether it contained the necessary enacting words to enable the Sheriff to do the work imposed upon him. His (Mr. Asher's) clause had been framed so as to include what was necessary to produce the effect which was clearly intended.
    MR. WILLIAMSONsaid, he also had a clause on the Paper on the same subject. If the clause proposed by the Government were accepted it would have to be remedied in one respect. In the second line were the words, "the person whose property has been injured." The Fisheries Act referred to the person as well as the property; and be would suggest that the words should be, "the person who has suffered injury," which would cover both the property and the person.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)said, he had
    1192
    contemplated making that change; and he proposed to substitute the words, "who has been injured," and also proposed to add, at the end of the clause—
    "And shall proceed, after hearing the parties, to give decree as in an ordinary case before the sheriff court."
    Perhaps those changes would meet the views which bad been expressed.
    MR. ASHERwished to call attention to that part of the clause which directed the Sheriff to proceed according to the provisions of Clause 7. Now, Clause 7 simply regulated the duty of the fishery officer. Was the Sheriff to convert himself into a fishery officer, and proceed to do a fishery officer's duties? The words were unintelligible.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)said, that if the clause were adopted he would consider it on Report, with the view of making any necessary alteration.
    On Motion of the SECRETARY to the BOARD (Baron Henry De Worms), Clause amended by striking out the words "whose property has been injured," and inserting "who has been injured," and by adding at the end the words—
    "And shall proceed, after hearing the parties, to give decree, as in an ordinary case before the sheriff court."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    Preamble agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 258.]

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  LABOURERS (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.

    [BILL 68.] CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    Clause 12 (Provisional Order may be confirmed by the Privy Council).
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he had an alteration to propose in the clause in order to make it correspond with the 2nd clause of the Bill, as amended in Committee.
    Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 22, to leave out the word "less," and insert the word "more."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'less' stand part of the Clause."
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he could not assent to the alteration proposed by the hon. Member for Sligo. He considered that the word "lees" ought to stand part of the clause, because the change agreed to last night in Committee related to a different matter altogether.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, he had considered this Amendment, and found it to be exactly the same in character as that agreed to in Committee.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 17 (Miscellaneous amendments of Act of 1883).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 10, lines 10 and 11, to leave out the words "peace of the county," and insert the word "Union."—(Mr. P. J. Power.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he objected to the principle of this Amendment. The Amendment, besides, would not agree with the wording of the clause. There were many Unions in the various counties.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, it was quite clear that the wording was right, because no scheme could extend beyond the Union.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, there was a Clerk of the Peace or Union; but there was no such thing as a Union of a county.
    MR. SEXTONassured the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County that if be examined the clause carefully he would see that the term was correct.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be re-committed in respect of two New Clauses."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    COLONEL KING-HARMANproposed to amend the Motion by leaving out "two," and inserting "four."
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "two," and insert the word "four,"—(Colonel King-Harmon,)—instead thereof.
    Question, "That the word 'two' stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
    The word "four" inserted.
    Clause, as amended, agreed in.
    Bill re-committed in respect of four New Clauses: considered in Committee.
    New Clause (Closing of dwellings unfit for habitation,)—brought up, and read the first and second time, and added to the Bill.
    New Clause (Area of charge for rate levied by Sanitary Authority,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that this clause was discussed in Committee, and, he thought, generally recognized that the Local Authorities, who were responsible to the ratepayers, were the best judges of the charge.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, it would be within the recollection of the House that it had been suggested that the rating should be made upon the Union instead of upon the electoral division. After some discussion upon the point, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) suggested that the matter should be left to the discretion of the Sanitary Authority. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) had made inquiries, and had been informed by the Local Government Board that at the present time the matter was to all intents and purposes within the control of the Sanitary Authorities. That being so, there could be no objection to this clause.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause added to the Bill.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Where are the other clauses?
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I do not move them.
    Bill reported; as amended, considered.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND) [SALARIES].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the Salaries of additional Members of the Irish Land Commission, and of any Officers who may be appointed under the pro-

  1195
  visions of any Act of the present Session for providing greater facilities for the sale of Land to occupying tenants in Ireland.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Expiring Laws Continuance* (229); Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers)* (231); Crown Lands* (224); Telegraph Acts Amendment (230).
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Third Heading— Registration Appeals (Ireland)* (226), and passed.
Report—Burgh Police and Health (Scotland)* (190); Evidence by Commission* (228).
Third Reading—Pluralities* (213); Customs and Inland Revenue (No. 2)* (220); Lunacy Acts Amendment* (221), and passed.

TELEGRAPH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Mount-Temple.)
TELEGRAPH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

  (NO. 230.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD MOUNT-TEMPLE,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it would enable persons disposed to be laconic to communicate by telegraph, at half the present cost. It would, therefore, confer a very considerable boon upon those persons who were now obliged to pay for 20 words when their messages contained less than 10 words. It was calculated that if the

  1027
  Bill passed there would be a large increase in the number of messages sent; and there was no doubt that the measure would be a very great advantage to the public at large. The provisions of the Bill were very simple, but would be important to all classes of the community.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Mount-Temple.)
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he could not quite understand how the Bill came to be in charge of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Mount-Temple). He would like to know from that whether the Government assented to the Bill; and also whether the 1st section meant that the name and address of the sender must be upon the message, as the name and address were now to be counted as parts of the 12 words allowed to be sent for 6d.?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (The Earl of IDDESLEIGH)said, that the Bill was introduced into the Commons by the late Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre). When it came on for discussion, his (the Earl of Iddesleigh's) noble Friend the present Postmaster General (Lord John Manners) proposed that it should be carried with an Amendment respecting free addresses of which he had given Notice. His noble Friend was defeated upon that, and thereupon left his Predecessor to take charge of the Bill. So far as the Government were concerned, they looked upon the Bill as one for which the late Government were responsible.
  LORD MOUNT-TEMPLEsaid, he was not like the noble Earl who asked the question (the Earl of Milltown), and who had pounced upon the Medical Relief Disqualification Removal Bill against the wish of the promoters of the Bill—he had been requested by the late Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) to take charge of the Bill, and he had done so. Under its provisions the sum of 6d. was to be paid for any number of words not exceeding 12; and the sender might put them either in the address or in the message, sending as many or few as he desired in either.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, that in Committee he would move an Amendment in order to make the Bill more clear on the point raised by his question.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN—DELIMITATION OF THE FRONTIER.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH,in rising to ask the Prime Minister a Question as to the progress of the negotiations with the Russian Government regarding the delimitation of the Afghan Frontier, and especially as to the matter of the Zulfikar Pass and the position of Maruchak and Penjdeh; also, what are the terms of the agreement concluded between the Viceroy of India and the Ameer of Afghanistan at the Durbar at Rawul Pindi; whether those terms have been subjected to any modification or amendment by Her Majesty's present Government; and, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to occupy the Pishin Valley or any other strategical positions within the dominions of the Ameer with a force of observation this autumn? said, he would not enter into any detailed remarks on that occasion, neither did he wish to press for any statement with regard to the negotiations which might in any way tend to complicate the situation, or be inconvenient as regards the interests of the public. But the Session was drawing to a close, and very great interest was felt throughout the country in the state of these negotiations. Some short time ago the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) made a statement in the House, and it was clear as far as it went. As he (the Duke of Marlborough) understood it, the noble Marquess was not prepared to recommend any novel course. They had been informed that there was to be an arbitration, and that something was to be referred to somebody; but nothing was stated in a definite form, and now they were given to understand that that was to lapse, and that the only question was a delimitation of Frontier, which involved only a few miles of territory 500 miles from their Indian Possessions. The only question left in abeyance, which neither the late Government nor the present Government had communicated their opinion upon, was the most important of all—it was what was the

  1029
  agreement which was arrived at between the Viceroy of India and the Ameer as to the defence of Afghanistan? These questions in regard to the Frontier were of great importance, and the trade of the country was more or less influenced by the prolonged tension at which the public mind was being kept with respect to them; and he hoped the noble Marquess would be able to make some statement which would tend to relieve the public anxiety. In his opinion, it was perfectly useless for this country to enter into negotiations with the Government of Russia with regard to territory which was 500 miles from their Indian Frontier unless they were prepared to come to an agreement with the Ameer as to the means they were to have of overlooking and watching that Frontier. It had been stated that the subsidy to the Ameer had been increased to £250,000 annually. If they were to give so large a subsidy, there should be some clear understanding of what were to be their relative responsibilities. If there was to be a recurrence of disturbances on the delimitation of Frontier like those which had already occurred at Penjdeh, they could never tell at what moment this country might be drawn into European difficulties without having anyone but themselves to blame in the matter.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will take the various heads of the noble Duke's Question in turn, and will give to them such answer as I can. In the first place, the noble Duke asks me—
  "As to the progress of the negotiations with the Russian Government regarding the delimitation of the Afghan Frontier, and especially as to the matter of the Zulfikar Pass and the position of Maruchak and Pendjeh?"
  Maruchak remains with Afghanistan, and Penjdeh remains with Russia. So much was agreed to by the late Government, and nothing has been suggested on either side to disturb that agreement since. With respect to the Zulfikar Pass, I cannot say that matters are in a very different position from what they were when the present Government took Office. Our contention, as the noble Duke is aware, is that the Zulfikar Pass was promised to Afghanistan, and that, on the strength of that promise, the Viceroy of India promised the Ameer should have it. We held ourselves bound by that promise, and we hold Russia bound by that promise also. I
  1030
  can state exactly what our contention is, and have done so; but I do not feel it would be equally proper for me to state what the contention of Russia is in the matter; for, though it is easy to represent your own views in your own words, when you attempt to represent the contention of other persons, of the party with whom you are in controversy, it is possible that some words you may use may not represent as accurately as they would wish it to be represented the precise views that they take. I will only say, therefore, that they do not admit our contention in the matter. I do not know how soon I shall be able to lay Papers on the Table. I am very anxious to do so as soon as possible, because it will dissipate all misunderstanding, and make the position of the Government very much more satisfactory. But, of course, it is impossible to do so as long as by doing so we might in any way compromise the success of the negotiation. I may say that the delay at present is chiefly due to the desire of the Russian Government to obtain more information with respect to the matter on which the controversy turns. The noble Duke asks me, in the next place, what are the terms of the agreement concluded between the Viceroy of India and the Ameer of Afghanistan at the Durbar at Rawul Pindi? I do not think it would be desirable to publish the whole account of that interview, because foreign Potentates, and especially Potentates like the Ameer of Afghanistan, do not understand our Parliamentary ways, and might resent that that should be given to the world which they had spoken imagining it to be in perfect confidence. At the same time I can tell the noble Duke, what I have said before, that we distinctly agreed that the Ameer should have the Zulfikar Pass as a portion of the Afghan Frontier. The noble Duke proceeds to ask whether those terms have been subjected to any modification or amendment by Her Majesty's present Government? To that my answer is easy. They have been subjected to no modification or amendment whatever. The noble Duke also asks—
  "Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to occupy the Pishin Valley or any other strategical positions within the dominions of the Ameer with a force of observation this autumn?"
  Well, this is a Question which it is

  1031
  rather difficult to answer directly, because it contains some misapprehensions. We are already in occupation of the Pishin Valley, which is not a position within the Dominion of the Ameer, but belongs to the Crown of England. The Pishin Valley, as I have said, is occupied, and I dare say probably will be occupied, in greater force as time goes on. The noble Duke is well aware of the policy which was stated in the course of the somewhat remarkable debate which was started at the instance of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll) some months ago, in which there was substantial agreement between both sides of the House as to the imperative necessity of strengthening our Indian Frontier. That policy, I believe, as the late Government understood it, as far as I know, we are pursuing as rapidly and as vigorously as we can. No ephemeral alteration in the diplomatic situation will induce us in any degree to relax or alter a policy which does not depend upon the transitory conditions of our relations with this or that Power, and which is absolutely necessary for the security of our Indian Empire, without reference to what other nations may be doing. We have no intention to occupy any strategic position in the Dominions of the Ameer with a force of observation during the present autumn. The Ameer is an independent Potentate, and of course we could not do such a thing without his permission; but, apart from that, there is no desire to do it at present. What might happen under certain contingencies in the future I will not say; I only can speak for the present, and there is no project of the kind in contemplation by the Indian Government.

EGYPT (THE SOUDAN)—THE FRIENDLY TRIBES.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSasked, Whether, before Parliament separated, the noble Marquess would make a statement with reference to the Soudan, and particularly as to any steps to be taken for the protection of the tribes that had been friendly to us? The Question he had asked had reference to the Proclamation which had been issued by General Gordon promising protection to the friendlies.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am afraid, to use a well-known phrase that "many things have happened" since General Gordon wrote those words-Whether there are any "friendlies" now in existence for us to protect is a matter on which I should not like to give any hasty assurance. I know that a great many friendlies were killed; and I think it probable that such as were not killed have ceased to be friendly. However that may be, no appeal has reached me from any tribes described as friendly who are now suffering danger in consequence of their conduct towards us. I quite recognize the responsibility which rests on this country with respect to vast masses of the population in consequence of what we did in the Soudan; but I am not aware that at present there is any call on Her Majesty's Government to take any steps for the protection of any peoples of that kind. I am afraid the time has passed when such protection could be given to anyone by England. With respect to the question of the Soudan generally, I will only say that it is a matter very specially belonging to the Mission on which my right hon. Friend Sir Drummond Wolff has started. It would not be for the public service or consistent with usage that I should state the recommendations which we shall have to make to the Sultan and others on this subject. But my noble Friend may be well assured that, after the immediate needs of Egyptian finance are happily disposed of, there is no subject which claims a more earnest attention on the part of Her Majesty's Government than that of the regions to which he referred.

THE NEW PUBLIC OFFICES—DESIGNS FOR THE NEW WAR OFFICE AND ADMIRALTY.—QUESTION.
In reply to the Earl of WEMYSS,
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (The Earl of IDDESLEIGH)said, that he would communicate with the First Commissioner of Works, in order to see whether some arrangement could not be made for placing the models of the new War and Admiralty Offices, now being exhibited in the Victoria Gallery, in some place where they could be inspected by architects and others interested in the matter.
House adjourned at Five o'clock, till To-morrow, Two o'clock.