Sitting of 25 February 1886

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN—Right honble. Frederick Edward Gould Lambart, commonly called Viscount Kilcoursie, for Somerset County (Southern Division); John William Mellor, esquire, for Grantham.
SELECT COMMITTEES—Selection, Sir Lyon Playfair disch.; Dr. Cameron added; Rivers Pollution (River Lea), appointed; National Provident Insurance, appointed; Educational Endowments, nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1885–6); CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCR, AND ART, Votes 7, 8, 14; CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES, Votes 3 & 5; CLASS VI.—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES, Votes 1 & 4; CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS, Votes 4 & 6; REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, Votes 2 & 3; NAVY (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1885–6).
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Crofters (Scotland) (No. 2) [118]; Waterworks (Rating)* [117].
Committee—Lunacy (Vacating of Seats)* [85]—R.P.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  PARLIAMENT—STANDING ORDERS.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (MR. COURTNEY): The Motions I have to make are to alter the form of Standing Order 183A, in order to bring it into agreement with an altered condition of things. The Standing Order, as it now exists, requires that in every Bill which contains power to take dwellings occupied by the labouring classes, compulsorily or by agreement, clauses shall be inserted to prevent the promoters from taking them until they shall have obtained the approval of the Central Authority to a scheme affording equal accommodation to them. The Standing Order in the case of Scotland declares the "Central Authority" to be the Home Secretary. But a Secretary for Scotland has now been appointed, who has superseded the Home Secretary as Central Authority for Scotland; and the object of the alterations of the Standing Order, which I am about to propose, is simply to substitute the Secretary for Scotland for the Home Secretary as the Central Authority. I beg to move, in line 49 of the Standing Order, in the passage which

  1189
  defines the Central Authority to mean "as regards the Metropolis or Scotland the Secretary of State for the Home Department," after the word "Metropolis," to leave out "or Scotland."
  Question, in Standing Order 183A, in line 49, after the word "Metropolis," to leave out the words "or Scotland," put, and agreed to.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. COURTNEY)THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. COURTNEY) moved, in line 50, after the word "Department," to insert the words "and as regards Scotland, the Secretary for Scotland."
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
  Sir LYON PLAYFAIR discharged from attendance on the Committee:—Dr. Cameron added to the Committee.—(Sir John R. Mowbray.)
BELFAST MAIN DRAINAGE BILL.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to move—
  "That the Petition against the Belfast Main Drainage Bill, deposited in the Private Bill Office on the 19th instant, he printed and circulated with the Votes."
  The Petition referred to here is one which was adopted at a public meeting of the occupiers and inhabitants of Belfast in opposition to a local Private Bill which is about to come before a Committee of this House. But in consequence of the depressed condition of trade in Belfast and the enormous cost which attends the opposition to a Private Bill in Parliament the ratepayers are unable to send witnesses here, and appear in opposition to the Bill in the ordinary way. I have given Notice of my intention on Tuesday next to move an Instruction on an important matter relating to this Bill; and I think it would be for the convenience of the House, and would also tend to an economy of its time, if the facts relating to the case were placed at once in the hands of the general body of Members. I, therefore, make this Motion.
  Motion agreed to.
  Ordered, That the Petition against the Belfast Main Drainage Bill, deposited in the Private Bill Office on the 19th instant, be printed and circulated with the Votes.

NOTICE OF QUESTION.

  PARLIAMENT—ORDER—ARGUMENTATIVE QUESTIONS.
  COLONEL WARING: I beg to give Notice that on Monday next I will ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with reference to his statement as to dispensing with certain powers claimed by the Executive in Ireland, Whether he is aware that the National League arrogates to itself the power directly and indirectly to prohibit the payment of rent; whether the Rev. Mr. O'Connor, parish priest, of Firies, is not reported in The Kerry Sentinel of November 10 to have stated at a meeting of the National League—
  "That any tenant who went behind the back of the other tenants and paid his rent was a traitor to the cause. [A Voice: Shoot them.] Father O'Connor: Don't."
  Whether Mr. Curtin was not shot on the Friday following, having paid his rent; and, whether as this and similar circumstances have occurred constantly in Ireland the Chief Secretary will take steps to bring the laws of conspiracy to bear upon illegal combinations of this character?
  MR. SEXTON: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of Order. I would ask whether the statement of the hon. and gallant Member that the National League arrogates to itself certain powers is not a matter of opinion and argument, and is, therefore, by the Standing Orders of the House, excluded from the Journals of the House?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: At the same time I would ask, as a matter of Order, whether it is within the spirit of the Rules of this House that hon. Members, at Notice time, should inflict upon the House long extracts from letters in newspapers, containing expressions such as those to which my hon. Friend has called attention, which will not and cannot afterwards appear on the Journals of the House, being contrary to the Orders and spirit of the Rules of the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: In reply to the two hon. Members, I have to say that I wish the House would sanction me in restraining Questions of the nature referred to, and also in enforcing the practice that when Questions are to be

  1191
  put they may be placed on the Notice Paper without previous Notice, or being required to read them. With reference to the special Question asked, I shall, of course, before it appears on the Paper, carefully revise it; and if I find introduced in it any argumentative matter or any disputed statement of fact I shall not allow it to appear.
  MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: When the Question is put I will ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, whether the meeting referred to was not a meeting of the tenantry of a certain estate; whether it is not the fact that the landlord, in consequence of the action of the tenants since, has made a reduction of rent to the extent of 20 per cent; and, whether the landlord in question is not a Member of Her Majesty's Government?

QUESTIONS.

  WALES—INSPECTOR OF SLATE AND SETT QUARRIES.
  MR. JONES-PARRYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will appoint an Inspector of slate and sett quarries in North Wales?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (MR. CHILDERS),in reply, said, his hon. Friend might not be aware that legislation would be necessary before the appointment of the officer referred to could be made. The advisability of such a Bill was now occupying his careful attention.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—ALLEGED DISORDER—CONDUCT OF POLICE AT BENNETSBRIDGE, CO. KILKENNY.
  MR. MARUMasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to alleged action of the Constabulary force at Bennetsbridge, in the county of Kilkenny, in flinging stones and grappling irons during night-time from the summits of bridges spanning the River Nore, and from other places into such river, to the danger and bodily injury of boatmen and others of the public plying on the same, instead of ascertaining the names of offenders, if any, against the police regulations of the river, and proceeding by summons according to due course of
  1192
  law; and, whether he will cause inquiry to be made, with a view to putting a stop to such alleged irregular action of the Constabulary?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I am assured that the police have never acted as alleged in this Question. The River Nore at Bennetsbridge is not navigable, and consequently neither boatmen nor the public ply on it.

  RAILWAYS—RAILWAY COUPLINGS.
  MR. CHANNINGasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Inspecting Officers of Railways have reported upon the various Railway coupling appliances that were exhibited at the Inventions Exhibition last year; and, if so, when will the Report be laid upon the Table; whether he is aware of the fact that the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants have voted the sum of five hundred pounds to assist in testing improved modes of Railway couplings; and, whether, having regard, to the great loss of life and limb consequent upon the present system of doing this dangerous part of Railway work, the Government will supplement this sum by a grant from the Treasury for the purpose of a thorough and practical investigation into this important question?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. MUNDELLA): The Railway Inspecting Officers have not reported to the Board of Trade upon the various railway coupling appliances that were exhibited at the Inventions Exhibition last year. Some of those officers were on the jury to whom those appliances were referred; and I believe the jury expressed an opinion with regard to the various inventions that were submitted to them. I am not aware that the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants have voted the sum of £500 to assist in testing improved methods of railway couplings; but I do know that some experiments have recently taken place under the auspices of that society in regard to those matters upon the London and South-Western Railway. With regard to the last paragraph of the hon. Member's Question, I am not prepared to recommend the Treasury to supplement the sum referred to for the purpose of further investigations in this important matter, for I do not think it would be desirable

  1193
  that the Board of Trade should assume the responsibility of deciding upon the respective merits of various inventions—a responsibility which must properly rest upon those who have the control and management of railways.

  IRELAND—COMMISSIONERS OF CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS —"BELFAST WHITE LINEN HALL."
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Will he lay upon the Table of the House, Copies of all Correspondence, had from 4th December 1884 to 25th January 1886, between John Suffern, of Windsor, Belfast, and the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland, relative to the management of the lands and property of the "Belfast White Linen Hall," a charity founded and established in the year 1783, at a great cost, for the encouragement and extension of the linen trade; also Copies of all Correspondence and Protests and Statements had between the Chamberlain, Chairman, or Committee of the said "Belfast White Linen Hall" and the said Commissioners, and the said John Suffern, relative to the management of the said charity from the 1st day of November 1882 till the 25th day of January 1886?
  THE CHIEF SECRETAEY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): A correspondence on this subject has taken place between Mr. Suffern and the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests; and if the hon. Member will move for it in due form there is no objection to its production. There has been no correspondence between the Commissioners and the Linen Hall; and if any has taken place between the Linen Hall and Mr. Suffern the Government have no control over it, and are not in a position to produce it. The hon. Member should, therefore, confine his Motion to the Correspondence I have first mentioned.

  SEA AND COAST FISHERIES (IRELAND) —GRIEVANCE OF THE FOYLE FISHERMEN.
  MR. JAMES O'DOHERTYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries have reported, on the complaints of the Foyle fishermen, with respect to a steamer
  1194
  which the lessees of the Foyle and Bann Fisheries send out at night without lights among their boats; whether complaints have been made by the fishermen with respect to the uncertain boundary between the several fisheries in the Foyle and the sea beyond; and, whether he will ask for a report on these matters, and lay it upon the Table of the House?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): Yes, Sir; the Inspectors of Fisheries have reported on these matters, and there is no objection to the production of the Report, if the hon. Member will move for it.

  EXCISE—COTTAGE BREWING LICENCES.
  MR. EVERETTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will kindly consider the practicability of complying with the wishes of the agricultural labourers that the cottage brewing licences shall expire in April instead of September, so that those who cannot afford to take them till haytime in May or June may be able to enjoy the use of them for all the year instead of for only a small portion of it, as now?
  MR. JASPER MOREasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he would consider the inequality of the farmer with a large house and small farm having to pay the Private Brewer's Duty, whilst the farmer with a small house but a large farm pays the licence only; and, whether, considering the small sums produced to the Exchequer by Private Brewer's Licences, he would consider the utility of abolishing them altogether?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT): In answer to the hon. Member for Suffolk (Mr. Everett), I made some inquiry about this matter, and I hope something may be done; but I do not wish to pledge myself. In reference to the Question of the hon. Member for Shropshire (Mr. J. More), there is considerable difficulty about the first part. This matter was very carefully considered at the time the alteration was made in the Malt Tax, and I fear I cannot propose any change in that direction. As to the second part of the Question, it is quite true that the sum derived from these licences is very small; but then we have to consider the unfair operation which this

  1195
  would have upon small brewers. At present I do not see my way to abolishing these licences.

  CHURCH OF ENGLAND—CONVOCATION—"THE HOUSE OF LAYMEN."
  MR. PICTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury did, on the 16th instant, while the two Houses of Convocation were sitting, open a third House in the Broad Sanctuary, giving it the title of the "House of Laymen;" whether, in his opening address to that House, His Grace used the following words, as reported in The Times:—
  "The Convocation of Canterbury has now, after much careful discussion, requested the Bishops in each diocese of the Province to call upon the lay members of their several conferences, who are themselves all elected by the laity of the parishes, to elect a House of Laymen;"
  and, whether the request, mentioned by the Archbishop as adopted after careful discussion, was recorded in the proceedings of Convocation and acted upon without licence from Her Majesty the Queen; and, if so, whether any authoritative legal opinion was previously obtained as to the consistency of any such resolution, or order or ordinance, with the 25th Henry VIII., c. 19, where it is enacted that the clergy shall not
  "Enact, promulge, or execute any canons, constitutions, or ordinances provincial, by whatsoever name or names they may be called, in their convocations in time coming (which always shall be assembled by authority of the King's writ), unless the same clergy may have the King's Most Royal Assent and licence to make, promulge, and execute such canons, constitutions, and ordinances provincial or synodal, on pain of every one of the clergy doing contrary to this Act, and being thereof convict, to suffer imprisonment and make fine at the King's will?"
  COLONEL WARING: I wish also to ask the right hon. Gentleman another Question—namely, whether, in the event of the Law Officers of the Crown advising Her Majesty's Government that the action of the Archbishop was illegal, the Government will be prepared to bring in a Bill to legalize such an alteration in the constitution of Convocation as the Archbishop sought to make, thereby facilitating in the Church of England that reform from within which constitutes the sole advantage derived by the Irish Church from the
  1196
  otherwise unmixed disaster of disestablishment and disendowment? ["Order!"]
  MR. SEXTON: As a Question of Order, I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the Question of the hon. and gallant Member, like the former Notice given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, is not entirely irregular?
  MR. SPEAKER: The last part of the Question of the hon. and gallant Member is entirely out of Order.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): When I have answered the Question on the Paper, I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not find it necessary to put his Question. In reply to my hon. Friend, I beg to say that I have ascertained that the Archbishop did, at the time and place named, open a meeting called the House of Laymen; but the Archbishop did not open a third House of Convocation. The House of Laymen is a voluntary body, and in no sense a third House. The Archbishop did use the words which my hon. Friend quotes; but the request was an informal one, and was not recorded in the proceedings of Convocation. It was not proposed to promulgate or execute any ordinances by any name whatsoever, so no question arose as to their legality.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND)— MR. MICHAEL LYNCH, BARNA, CO. GALWAY.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it the fact that the Recorder of Galway last month granted to Mr. Marcus Lynch a decree of ejectment against Michael Carter, of Barna, from his holding of six acres, although the rent was fully paid up; that the cause of the proposed eviction is the fact that the tenant, who holds from a middleman, got his rent reduced in the Land Court from £8 2s. 2d. to £5, this being less than the middleman paid the head landlord; that though the tenant has always paid the fair rent fixed by the Land Commissioners, the county court now holds that to escape eviction he is bound to pay the higher rent due by the middleman, in spite of the operation of the Land Act; are the Government aware that analogous cases have previously occurred in county Waterford and elsewhere; do they propose to take any steps to prevent the nullification of the Land Act by such proceedings; and,

  1197
  is it intended to lend the forces of the Crown to the landlord to evict Carter, whose "fair rent" is fully paid, and who has complied with all the conditions of his judicial tenancy under the Land Act?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): The Question of the hon. and learned Member has reference to a subject which, no doubt, as an abstract one, is of importance to tenants holding under middlemen; but in this particular instance I am informed that the tenant has appealed, and the legal rights of the parties depend upon the result of the appeal, which will be disposed of next month.

  COURT OF BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND)— THE LATE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE (MR. C. H. JAMES).
  MR. PETER M'DONALDasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If the Irish Chief Remembrancer has completed his investigations into the accounts of the late official assignee of the Irish Court of Bankruptcy, Mr. Charles Henry James; and, if he has reported thereon; and, if so, will the report be printed and circulated in the usual manner?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. H. H. FOWLER): The Treasury have been informed by the Treasury Remembrancer of Dublin that the investigation of the accounts of the late official assignee of the Court of Bankruptcy would be completed during the next week. Until my Lords have received and considered the information thus obtained they cannot state what course they will adopt with respect to it. As I have not yet seen the Report, I cannot say whether it can be laid on the Table of the House.
  MR. PETER M'DONALD: Might I ask the hon. Gentleman whether this examination has not been going on for the last eight months?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I have no means of answering that Question.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS— LIST OF CLAIMS TO VOTE OF THE DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BOARD.
  MR. PETER M'DONALDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If his attention has been drawn to the manner
  1198
  in which the revision of the Dublin Port and Docks Board list of claims to vote has been made, such revision having been begun on the 23rd, instead of, as the Act directs, "as soon as possible after the first day of November," the result of which was that, before it was half gone through, the revising barrister closed the list, stating it should be signed on the 30th; and, if the present Irish authorities purpose taking steps to remedy the wrong so done to the traders and manufacturers of Dublin, by ordering a new revision and election?
  MR. MACARTNEY: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, I would like to ask whether it is a fact that 900 claims put forward by the Nationalist Party were disallowed; whether many of the so-called claimants had left without leaving their addresses; whether the persons advocating such claims were not liable under the 64th section of the Act of 1867 to fine; and, whether the term "traders and manufacturers of Dublin" could not at all be said to apply to these persons?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): The hon. Member opposite must be aware that his Question is one which could not be answered without Notice. No representation whatever has been made to the Irish Government as to the manner in which the revision was carried out. Should any such representation be made, it will, of course, receive careful attention; but the hon. Member is no doubt aware that the Revising Barrister is appointed by the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, and is not under the control of Government.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING—THE "MARY MARK."
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is the case that the British barque Mary Mark, when lying at anchor at British Honduras, was on 9th July 1883 run down by a Spanish man-of-war, owing to the sole negligence of the latter, as certified by a Court of Inquiry held at Belize 7th August 1883; that the claim of the owners, in respect of the loss thereby sustained, was submitted to the Spanish Government by Her Majesty's Foreign Office in March 1884, but that up to the present no compensation has been awarded; and, what

  1199
  steps Her Majesty's Foreign Office propose to take to insure the prompt settlement of the reasonable demands of the owners, so long neglected?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): The facts of the case are correctly stated by the hon. Member; but it must be added that the Spanish Government do not recognize the sufficiency of the inquiry held by British authority at Belize, and are prosecuting a further investigation of their own. Sir Clare Ford, Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid, was assured, on the 12th ultimo, that the case would receive immediate consideration, and he will continue to press the matter on the attention of the Spanish Government.

  LAND COMMISSION COURT (IRELAND) —APPEALS.
  MR. MARUMasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been called to the large arrears of appeal cases, in reference to fixing fair rents, now depending in the Land Commission Courts in Ireland, and undisposed of, amounting to some 10,000 in number; and, further, to the great length of time which has elapsed since proceedings have been initiated by some of the poor tenantry concerned, and the harassing character of the dilatory proceedings; for instance, in the county Carlow appeal cases:—Denis Pack Beresford, landlord, Thomas O'Neill, tenant (Mr. M. M. Murphy, solicitor for the tenant). Record No. 631. That notice to have a fair rent fixed was served on the 21st April 1883; the case was heard by Sub-Commission, 19th March 1884, and rent reduced from £78 to £63; that notice of appeal was served by landlord immediately after; that appeal was listed for hearing, 15th July 1885, tenant and six witnesses brought to Dublin from Slyguff, county Carlow, seventy miles, kept in Dublin for two days, and appeal not heard; that appeal was again listed on 29th July 1885, and tenant and his witnesses had again to go to Dublin, but the case was not heard; that, pursuant to General Order, Session 1885–6, there will be no sitting for hearings for the county of Carlow until the 2nd August 1886. And, again, in the case of Arthur M'Murrogh Kavanagh, landlord, Denis Doherty, tenant (same solicitor). Record No. 660. That
  1200
  originating notice was served, 18th May 1883; case heard on 5th June 1884 by Sub-Commission at Bagenalstown, and rent fixed at £34, old rent £48; that notice of appeal by landlord was served on the 20th June 1884, and the case has never been listed for hearing by the Appeal Court; and, whether Her Majesty's Government is prepared to make immediate provision for this state of things?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I have not been able to go fully into the subject of the arrears of appeal cases before the Land Commission. I should observe, however, that the number of cases at present undisposed of is about 8,000. As regards the particular cases referred to, it appears that in both instances the appeal is by the landlord. It is fair, therefore, to assume that the tenants are not dissatisfied with the judicial rents, which, I believe, are considered to be the rents they are liable for pending the hearing of the appeals. The delay and expense due to a case not being reached, or having to be postponed for one cause or another, are, I fear, inevitable when the sittings at different places have to be fixed some time in advance. I am assured that the Land Commissioners use every effort to dispose of all the cases on their lists.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)—FICTITIOUS OUTRAGES, MOVILLE, CO. DONEGAL.
  MR. JAMES O'DOHERTYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the police at Moville, county Donegal, have discovered that the author of certain outrages reported to them by one Caldwell Moore (caretaker for a local landlord there) is Moore himself; whether Moore, having been summoned therefor, failed to appear to answer the charge, and a warrant has been issued for his arrest; whether Moore has been since made amenable; and, whether care will be taken to exclude Moore's reported outrages from the forthcoming return of agrarian crime in Ireland?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): The facts are as stated. Moore was convicted at Petty Sessions on the 2nd instant, and sent to prison for 14 days in default of paying a fine of £1. The case was not reported by the police as an outrage.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (IRELAND) ACT (1884)—DEFECTIVE RETURNS.
  MR. CLANCYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that, last year, a person named Townsend, agent of Sir Roger Palmer, baronet, failed to make a return, which he was bound to make under the "Representation of the People Act, 1884," of the names of nearly two hundred Parliamentary voters in the district of Push, county of Dublin; and, if so, whether he will take steps to enforce the penalties provided by the Act against Townsend?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I am informed that Mr. Townsend did omit to make the Return provided for by the Representation of the People Act, 1884. I will consult my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland as to whether a prosecution should be instituted, and, if so, by whom.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND)— MR. H. M'DOUGALL, AGENT TO THE GORMANSTOWN ESTATE, CO. MEATH.
  MR. CLANCYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Henry M'Dougall, agent of the Gormanstown estate in the county of Meath, recovered money under the Arrears Act when, as a matter of fact, no arrears were due on that estate; whether, when called on for an explanation, ho practically admitted his offence by re-funding the money in one case in which he had obtained it on an ex parte application made in spite of the tenant's refusal to join in applying; and, whether he will accordingly direct a prosecution of M'Dougall, either under the section of the Arrears Act which is concerned with such cases, or for perjury?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): Applications under the Arrears Act were made in the case of 20 tenants on the Gormanstown Estate; and in one case the tenant was stated by the agent, Mr. M'Dougall, to owe a half-year's rent, £3 10 s., which, as a matter of fact, had been paid. Mr. M'Dougall was called on to explain this in November last; and his explanation was, and is, that the payment of the rent had not been written up in the
  1202
  ledger by his clerk—who was leaving him at the time—that he had 1,349 tenants under him as agent, who took the benefit of the Act, and that, as there was pressure for time, the payment escaped attention. He has refunded the sum paid by the Land Commissioners, and has given the tenant credit for half a year's rent. I am advised that, on this information, there does not appear to be evidence of a criminal intent on Mr. M'Dougall's part; but, if a case is made, the Attorney General will consider it.
  MR. CLANCYasked, whether 10 such cases regarding Mr. M'Dougall had not been laid before the late Attorney General (Mr. Holmes)?
  MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, he could not be aware of that fact.

  AFFAIRS OF THE EAST—SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF'S MISSION.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, To state the total amount of actual payments for telegrams to and from Sir fl. D. Wolff, distinguishing those to and from Turkey and to and from Egypt. He further asked if it was the intention of the Government to take the Vote for the Diplomatic Service that night?
  MR. RYLANDSinquired whether arrangements had been made to pay Sir H. Drummond Wolff any salary or personal allowances in connection with his mission?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): In answer to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), I may say that the Estimates, I think, will show that Sir H. Drummond Wolff is in receipt of a salary. In reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), I have to say that the cost of the telegrams sent from the Foreign Office to Sir H. Drummond Wolff at Constantinople amounted to £165, and to Cairo, up to the 20th instant, to £607. The cost of the telegrams received from Sir H. Drummond Wolff while at Constantinople amounted to £685, and from Cairo, up to the 20th instant, to about £2,507. The total amount, therefore, up to the 20th instant, was £3,964.
  MR. RYLANDSasked what was the amount of Sir H. Drummond Wolff's salary, as it was not shown in the Estimates?
  MR. SPEAKER: The question of salary does not arise out of the cost for telegrams.

  FRANCE AND MADAGASCAR—THE TREATY.
  MR. M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received the full Malagasy text of the Treaty lately concluded between France and Madagascar; and, if so, whether he will lay that document, together with a translation, on the Table of the House, with as little delay as possible?
  SIR ROBERT FOWLERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the new Treaty concluded between France and Madagascar will in any way change the relations of England, Germany, Italy, and the United States with the Malagasy Government, or otherwise affect the existing Treaties between those Powers and the Queen of Madagascar?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): The French text of the Treaty, as it has been published in the Yellow Book laid before the French Chamber, has been received from Lord Lyons, and will be laid on the Table; but neither the Malagasy text nor a translation of it has as yet been received. In reply to the Question of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, I may now state that by that Treaty the relations with Madagascar of the Powers named will be so far changed by Articles 1 and 2 of the Treaty as to give to France the right of representing Madagascar in all its foreign relations through a Resident appointed by the French Government. Distinct assurances have been given by France to the Powers that the Treaty will make no change in their existing Treaties with Madagascar.

  NAVY—HAULBOWLINE DOCK (CORK HARBOUR).
  MR. LANEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, At what date the construction of the Royal Dock at Haul-bowline was commenced; what was the total amount of expenditure on the work up to the 31st December 1885; what was the original estimated cost; whether the plans provided for the erection of suitable workshops connected
  1204
  with the dock; and, whether, considering the importance of having a proper dock in Cork Harbour in which Her Majesty's ships could be repaired, and the great dearth of employment in Queenstown, he can promise to accelerate the completion of the work by employing additional labourers and artizans?
  THE LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. R. W. DUFF): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that the work was commenced in the year 1865, and the expenditure up to the 31st December, 1885, amounted to £494,845, the work having been chiefly done by free labour. The original plans, which proposed the employment of convict labour, estimated the cost at £550,000. The original plan contains a design for the erection of workshops; but the time has not yet come when they are wanted. In regard to the last paragraph of the Question, I beg to say that the works are drawing to a close. To engage extra labourers just now would defeat the object which the hon. Member appears to have in view.
  MR. LANE: Might I ask the hon. Gentleman when he thinks it will be necessary to commence the workshops?
  MR. R. W. DUFF: I think the erection of the workshops will have to be delayed till the Dockyard is completed.
  MR. LANE: Might I ask what time the hon. Gentleman thinks the work will be completed, considering that it has now been 22 years in progress?
  MR. R. W. DUFF: I think the work will be completed in the course of the present year.

  FISHERY PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)—WORKS AT KILLERDUFF AND POLNAMUCK, CO. MAYO.
  Mr. CRILLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that, early in 1885, the Irish Piers and Harbours Commissioners made grants of £1,250 and £400 for the construction respectively of a boat-slip and breakwater at Killer-duff, and of an inclined approach to the landing place at Polnamuck, both in the parish of Ballycastle, county Mayo; whether it is a fact that, although nearly a year has expired, the Board of Works in Ireland has not as yet even commenced the construction of

  1205
  the works in question; and, whether, if the facts be as stated, he, in view of the severe distress existing on the Western Coast, will use his influence, as President of the Board of Works, to hasten the beginning of these undertakings, which would, by providing local labour, relieve local distress, and which, would, when they were finished, advance the interests and protect the lives and property of the local fishermen?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): The hon. Member, in describing me as President of the Board of Works, invests me with a responsibility which I do not possess. That Department is under the control of the Treasury, and not of the Irish Government. However, the Board have furnished me with a Report, from which it appears that the recommendations of the Piers and Harbours Commissioners in these cases were made, not early in 1885, but in the month of July last, and that the working plans and necessary legal preliminaries were not completed till towards the end of the year. There will be no unnecessary delay in beginning work. I am glad, to be able to add that, in view of the existing distress, the Board have departed from the usual course of calling for tenders, and have ordered that, in 17 cases, the works shall be executed by day-labour, under the supervision of their own officers.

  THE ADMIRALTY—NAVAL PENSIONS.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether, having regard to the difficulty in providing Greenwich Hospital pensions for the aged Seamen and Marines who are eligible for them, the Admiralty will abstain from bestowing the pension of £150 a year, freed by the death of the late Admiral Morshead, upon another Flag Officer?
  THE LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. R. W. DUFF): There is no intention to deprive officers of their share of Greenwich Hospital funds. This share is a small one, officers and their relatives receiving between £8,000 and £9,000 a-year; while seamen, marines, their children, and relatives receive £145,000 a-year from the funds of the charity.

  POLICE SUPERANNUATION AND PENSIONS BILL.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it is his intention to introduce the Police Superannuation and Pensions Bill of the last Liberal Government during the present Session?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): I have to reply that the Government are still in favour of the principle of this Bill, which they have supported for the last three years. I therefore hope to be able to re-introduce a measure dealing with this subject; but there are certain details in the Bill of last year which will have to be reconsidered.

  DISTURBANCES IN THE METROPOLIS— COMPENSATION.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will indicate the mode by which compensation will be made to the tradesmen who were sufferers in the not of the 8th instant, for the destruction and robbery to which they were exposed from no fault of their own?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I have to say that a Bill has been drafted, and will be introduced immediately, enacting that such compensation as seems just shall be provided out of the Metropolitan Police Fund to those who have suffered loss through the riots on the 8th of February. The various claims will be inquired into by the Receiver of Police; and in the event of dispute an arbitrator will be appointed to decide upon the claims. I hope to be able to introduce the Bill tomorrow.
  MR. MAGNIACasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would include in the Bill the case of persons whose property was destroyed at the late General Election?
  MR. CHILDERS: No, Sir; it is not our intention to do so.

  HARBOUR ACCOMMODATION (NORTH OF SCOTLAND).
  DR. R. M'DONALDasked the President of the Board of Trade, If any inquiry has taken place on the subject of new and improved harbour accommoda-

  1207
  tion for the islands of Lewis and Skye, and for the Highlands generally; and, if so, when may the House hope to have a report thereof, and hear the intentions of Her Majesty's Government on the subject?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. D. ACLAND): No inquiry has been made on the subject of harbour accommodation since the general inquiry made in the last Parliament by the Select Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks).

  SCOTLAND—ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN THE HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS.
  DR. E. M'DONALDasked the Secretary for Scotland, If the Government will advise Her Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission or Select Committee to inquire into the administration of justice in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): It is not the intention of the Government to advise Her Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into this matter, no sufficient cause for it having been shown. I would remind the hon. Member that in the Report of the Crofters' Commission, 1884, there was a passage which deals with this matter, and which has been fully kept in view.

  THE MAGISTRACY (SCOTLAND)—MR. WILLIAM IVORY, SHERIFF OF INVERNESS-SHIRE.
  DR. E. M'DONALDasked the Secretary for Scotland, If any inquiry has been made into the circumstances connected with the alleged illegal demands of Sheriff Ivory, of Inverness-shire, to have the contents of private telegrams disclosed to him; and, if so, will the papers and memoranda in reference thereto be laid upon the Table of the House?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I will refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the then Postmaster General and myself on the 8th of June, 1885, on this subject, from which it will be seen that we did not consider there was ground for further inquiry beyond what was then made; and also to a statement made in this
  1208
  House by the First Lord of the Treasury of the late Government on 10th July last, in which he said that "no new information having reached the present Government, the Secretary of State did not see any ground for re-opening the case." Nothing has since occurred to alter the views thus expressed on the part of two successive Governments. I believe that there are various documents which have been called affidavits connected with the case.

  ARMY MEDICAL OFFICERS—THE SERVIAN AND BULGARIAN CAMPAIGN.
  SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any officers of the Army Medical Service have been sent to report upon the surgical treatment of the wounded, and the working of the field hospitals, in the recent Servian and Bulgarian War; and, if so, whether their Report will be published?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN): No British medical officers have been sent to report on the campaign between Servia and Bulgaria.

  POST OFFICE—THE UNIVERSITIES.
  MR. SHIRLEYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the fact that the Post Office Authorities have interfered with the long-continued practice of the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge to send messages within their localities respectively; and, if so, whether there is any, and what, justification, for the interference?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. H. H. FOWLER): The attention of the Postmaster General having been called to certain private arrangements made by the Colleges for the collection and delivery of letters in their respective localities, he was advised that these arrangements were illegal, as being an infringement of the exclusive privilege of carrying letters by post conferred on him by Act of Parliament. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the Postmaster General to inform the College authorities to that effect, and to request that the arrangements objected to might be discontinued. I am happy to say that the Postmaster General's representations were received in the spirit which might have been expected

  1209
  in the learned bodies to which they were addressed, and steps have been taken to put an end to the practices to which objection was made.
  MR. RAIKESgave Notice that he would, at an early date, ask the hon. Gentleman what Act of Parliament conferred the privilege to which he had referred?

  ARMY—THE SOUDAN CAMPAIGN-THE ROYAL IRISH REGIMENT.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is intended to give any special recognition to the Royal Irish Regiment to commemorate their march from Korti to Gubat, which began on the 28th January 1885 and was completed 6th February, seeing that it was the only regiment which accomplished it?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN): The Royal Irish Regiment, in conjunction with the other regiments, did its duty well in the course of the campaign. It is not intended to give any mark of recognition to the regiment, as the services of all the troops engaged in the operations were specially acknowledged.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked if the regiment had not performed a very gallant march across the desert on foot?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not know about on foot or otherwise; but the whole of that regiment was not engaged in the operations.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: Ono battalion.

  INLAND REVENUE OFFICIALS.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether any consideration will be given to the representations made during the late Parliament on behalf of the Inland Re-venue officials; and, whether the Government will consent to the appointment of a committee to inquire into the alleged grievances?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT)said, that this matter had not come before him, and he should certainly act upon the same principles as his immediate Predecessor, who declined to re-open this question unless new points or new evidence were brought before him. Last
  1210
  December, however, it had been found possible, owing to savings in other branches of the Inland Revenue, to improve very sensibly the condition of the Excise staff, and Papers on the subject would be laid before the House.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the officers of the Treasury had bound themselves to accept the decision of any Committee which might be appointed by the House; and whether it was not in the right hon. Gentleman's recollection that when he was a candidate for the representation of Derby he did not undertake in writing, if he (Sir Herbert Maxwell) were not mistaken, to support a Motion for inquiry?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I really have no recollection of that; but candidates and Chancellors of the Exchequer are very different persons.

  THE LUNACY COMMISSIONERS (ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND)—THE REPORTS.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience caused by the delay in issuing the Reports of the English and Scotch Lunacy Commissioners; whether it is the case that they are never ready for distribution until the month of August, when the Session has ended, or nearly so, and that last year the Scotch Report was not ready till September; and, whether there is any special reason why these Reports, which are prepared annually on set forms that never vary materially, could not be issued while the facts are fresh, say in at least three or four months after the expiration of the year?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. Guilders): I have been in communication with the English and Scotch Commissioners on the subject of the issue of their Reports. The former tell me that, owing to the data for the tabulation of statistics not being to hand till the end of March, they cannot promise an earlier issue of their full Report; but they will undertake to have ready by the end of April for presentation to Parliament a tabular statement showing the total number of lunatics in various institutions up to the beginning of each year. The Scotch Commissioners tell

  1211
  me that they expect to be able to present their Report in future by the middle of June.

  THE NEW FOREST—MUTILATION OF HOLLY TREES.
  MR. W. H. JAMESasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the fact that a wholesale mutilation of large and ornamental holly trees has taken place throughout the New Forest during November and December last, by cutting off the heads for sale with the berries; by whose authority and by whom this has been done; what precautions have been taken to prevent the death of the trees so mutilated; what is the total amount receivable from the sale of such holly; and, whether a Select Committee of this House unanimously recommended, in 1875, that the ancient ornamental woods and trees should be preserved, and the character of the scenery be maintained, by the officials in charge of the said Forest?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. H. H. FOWLER),in reply, said, that no unusual cutting of the trees had taken place during the last season. The cutting was executed under the direction of the proper authorities, and as it was for the benefit of the trees no steps would be taken to prevent it. The amount which had been realized from the sale of the cuttings was £142 3s. With reference to the recommendation of the Select Committee that the ornamental trees should be preserved, they were endeavouring to carry it out; but the authorities had not the powers they required for the purpose.

  ARMY (SIDE ARMS)—TENDERS FOR SWORDS.
  MR. MAPPINasked the Secretary of State for War, What steps have been taken to obtain the entire quantity of Cavalry swords from manufacturers of steel cutting tools in this country; whether tenders for the supply of Cavalry swords were advertised for in The Times and other newspapers; and, whether applications have been made during 1885, by letter or otherwise, to manufacturers of steel cutting tools in England, and how many such applications were made and sent to Sheffield, Birmingham, or other towns in this country?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. WOODALL): No steps were taken to invite the manufacturers of steel cutting tools to tender for the supply of swords. The sword of 1885, introduced upon the Report of the Committee of which the hon. Gentleman was a Member, has to sustain a test in advance of any to which swords had hitherto been subjected by the War Department; and it was not considered probable that weapons which would stand such a test could be produced in sufficient numbers by firms which had never made swords. For what were regarded as sufficient reasons, it was not thought advisable to advertise the requirements; but the Department will gladly welcome any desire of English manufacturers to address themselves to the task of producing the whole quantity of swords from time to time required; and if my hon. Friend will confer with me on the subject I will undertake to afford him all reasonable facilities and encouragement.

  CHURCH OF ENGLAND — COXWOLD RECTORY AND TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.
  SIR ROBERT PEELasked the Senior Member for Cambridge University, Whether it is a fact that, under a grant of Henry VIII. and after the dissolution of the Monastery at Newburgh, the Rectory of Coxwold, Yorkshire, which had belonged to that Monastery, was given to Trinity College, Cambridge, under the sacred obligation of providing for the spiritual wants of the parishioners; whether the present state of things as between Trinity College, Cambridge, and the parish of Coxwold is as follows: Trinity College is possessed of the Rectory, which comprises the whole ecclesiastical revenues of the parish, of the annual value of £1,678 13s. 8d. commuted rent-charge, under the sacred obligation of providing for the spiritual wants of the people of the parish, which obligation the College discharges by the annual money payment of £30, there being no parsonage house in the parish, no glebe land, and no other endowment except £20 per annum from the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, while the parish is so extensive that it is impossible for one clergyman properly to discharge his duties without assistance; and, whether steps cannot be taken with-

  1213
  out delay to put an end to the neglect on the part of Trinity College to fulfil the obligations accepted by the College when it became possessed of the whole ecclesiastical revenues of the parish of Coxwold?
  MR. SPEAKER: I am very sorry to have to point out to the right hon. Baronet that under the Rules of the House he is not entitled to put a Question to an hon. Member who is not in an official position.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: May I be allowed to say that I have brought the case under the notice of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; but they decline to have anything to do with so gross a case. My object in putting the Question upon the Paper was to obtain a confirmation of the report as to the state of the case.
  MR. SPEAKER: I am afraid that it is not in accordance with the Rules of this House to put a Question of this nature to a private Member.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: Inconsequence of your ruling, Sir, I beg to give Notice that on going into Committee of Supply I will call attention to the matter which forms the subject of my Notice, and will move a Resolution.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—MAJOR KERR, CAVAN MILITIA.
  MR. HAYDENasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the authorities intend retiring Major Kerr, of the Cavan Militia, as being beyond the limit of age and service?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN): This officer has not yet attained an age at which he would, under existing Regulations, be compulsorily retired.
  MR. HAYDENasked the Secretary of State for War, What number of recruits has the Adjutant of the Cavan Militia secured since the last training of the regiment?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN): 35 for the Army, and 56 for the Militia, since the 1st of July, 1885.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—OUT-DOOR RELIEF.
  MR. DWYER GRAYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, as President of the Irish Local Government Board, If any circular will
  1214
  be issued to local authorities in Ireland relative to out-door relief similar to that recently issued by the English Local Government Board; and, whether, in view of the distress and want of employment in Ireland, local authorities will be permitted to grant out-door relief there on similar conditions to those upon which it may be granted in England?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): The Irish Local Government Board have already much information on the subject of the prevailing distress, from communications made to them by Boards of Guardians and others, and from the Reports of their Inspectors, and they do not think it necessary, at present, to issue a Circular. The hon. Member is no doubt aware that, under existing powers, out-door relief cannot be afforded to able-bodied men while there is room in the workhouse; but, as I have previously stated, the situation is most carefully watched, and we shall not hesitate to ask for further powers if the necessity should unfortunately arise.

  INLAND REVENUE—THE INCOME TAX.
  MR. DWYER GRAY,asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether any directions have lately been given for the more rigid exaction or more prompt collection of the Income Tax?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. H. H. FOWLER): In reply to the Question of the hon. Member, I have to inform him that no instructions have been given for the more rigid exaction or more prompt collection of the Income Tax by the Treasury. The preparation of the terminal assessments for 1885–6, however, caused some delay in the commencement of the collection of the tax, which was due on or before the 1st of January last; and that has necessitated at this moment greater activity on the part of the collectors to enable them to collect the amount proper for the current financial year before the 31st March next.

  INLAND REVENUE—STAMPED NEWSPAPER WRAPPERS.
  MR. DWYER GRAYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, up to a couple of years ago, paper for impressed stamps for Irish news-

  1215
  papers was stamped at the Custom House, Dublin; whether a new regulation was then made requiring all such paper to be sent to Somerset House, London, to be stamped, but the Government paying the cost of carriage; whether recently, still another regulation has been made requiring the newspapers to pay the carriage to and from London: whether the receipts for the goods are still required to be sent to the Custom House, Dublin; and, what reasons have influenced the Government in making these changes?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. H. H. FOWLER): I have, in reply to the Question, to say that newspaper wrappers, which it is supposed is the meaning of "paper for impressed stamps," have never been stamped in Dublin, and no new regulation requiring each wrapper to be sent to London has consequently been made. Formerly the carriage of the paper wrappers sent up to London to be stamped was paid by the Government; but from motives of public economy the Board of Inland Revenue now expect newspaper proprietors in all parts of the Kingdom to pay the carriage of wrappers which they send up to be impressed for their own convenience. Receipts will be required at the Custom House, Dublin.

  LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND)—THE RESIDENT MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, LETTERKENNY ASYLUM.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that, on the 28th April 1885, in reply to an inquiry by William Feny, the resident medical superintendent of the Let-terkenny Lunatic Asylum stated that John Feny, an inmate, "was not improving in the state of his mind, but that his bodily health is good;" whether, in reply to a further application, William Feny was informed, by the same official, on the 20th August 1885, that his son John had died on the 14th July 1884; and, whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the case?
  THE CHIEF SECRETAEY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): Some confusion appears to have arisen from the fact that there were two patients of the same name at the same time in this asylum.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire generally
  1216
  into the condition of the persons in this asylum, and the number of deaths?
  MR. JOHN MORLEYwas understood to reply in the affirmative.

  THE SEED RATE (IRELAND).
  MR. FOLEYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, under the existing distress which prevails along the Connemara coast, the Government will prevent undue pressure being exercised in the collection of the seed rate in that district, and will also give immediate instructions that the works which have been discontinued at the Bunowen Pier be at once resumed, with the view of mitigating to some extent the prevailing distress?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): As I have already stated in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for North Galway, I hope shortly to be in a position to make an announcement of our intentions with respect to the seed rate. The Board of Works inform me that work has not been suspended at the pier at Bunowen. On the contrary, directions were given on the 22nd instant for additional men to be employed on it.

  FRANCE AND CHINA—THE RECENT TREATY.
  MR. MAGNIACasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Treaty lately made by the French Government with China purports to confer any exclusive privilege upon French subjects, in place of following the example of the Treaty of Lord Elgin, under which equal rights were stipulated for the subjects of all nations; whether the Government have made or will make endeavours to procure the like privileges, if any, for British subjects; and, with an authenticated Copy of the Franco-Chinese Treaty will be communicated to the House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): I beg to thank my hon. Friend for having held this Question over from last week, at my request, and perhaps the House will allow me to take this opportunity of saying that it would be not merely for the advantage of the Foreign Office, but for that of the public service and hon. Members themselves, if in future, when possible, they

  1217
  would be kind enough to give two or three days' Notice of Questions which refer to the Foreign Office, because it is often necessary to send telegrams abroad and make extensive researches at the Foreign Office itself, which necessarily take some time, in order to answer their Questions. In answer to my hon. Friend I have to say that there will be no objection to laying at once before Parliament the text of the Franco-Chinese Treaty, which has already been published in Paris. Meanwhile I may state that permission to trade across the land frontier of Tonquin at certain fixed points and to establish Consuls is granted to French subjects; but the conditions under which the trade is to be carried on are to be defined in special regulations which are now being negotiated in China. The Article in regard to the construction of railways by French assistance stipulates that no exclusive privilege is to be constituted in favour of France. Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in China was repeatedly instructed, at the time when the Treaty was being negotiated, to claim for this country, under the Most-Favoured Nation Clause of our Treaty, any such special privileges as might be granted to French subjects. He has made representations accordingly, and is continuing to pay every attention to the negotiations, which are still going on, with a view to secure British subjects any improved facilities which these new regulations may contain. Papers on the subject will be prepared and laid on the Table of the House as soon as possible.

  ARMY—PAYMENT OF PENSION'S.
  MR. C. H. WILSONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware of the evils and inconveniences resulting from paying the Army Pensioners quarterly, and whether ho will consider the desirability of paying them at shorter intervals, say every month?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE): It is believed that the great majority of pensioners themselves prefer the present system of quarterly payments. It was found that the men were more apt to squander the monthly small sum than they are to make away with the more appreciable amount received quarterly. There is, of course, a saving in labour, and therefore in ex-
  1218
  pense, to the War Department and the Post Office by the quarterly instead of monthly payment of pensions; and it would require strong evidence of inconvenience or hardship to justify a reversion to the former system.

  COLLEGIATE APPOINTMENTS (SCOTLAND).
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked the Secretary for Scotland, What course the Government intend to take with respect to the two vacant Principalships and the vacant Professorship in the University of St. Andrews?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. TREVELYAN): The Government hope, in a few days, to fill up the Principalship of the United College of St. Salvator and St. Leonard and the Physiological Chair at Aberdeen. With regard to the Principalship of St. Mary's College and the vacant Divinity Professorship, to which it has been attached, the Government are considering the obligations under which they are laid by the Report of the Royal Commission of 1878 and their legal position with regard to the recommendations of that Report.

  ARMY—REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF RECRUITING.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will take care that the Annual Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting, and also the Preliminary Return of the British Army (presented last year on the 18th of April), may both be presented before the discussion on the Army Estimates is taken?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN): I hope to pre sent the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting in the course of a few days. With regard to the preliminary general Annual Return, I will do my best to hasten its completion; but I cannot at present make any promise on the subject.

  ANNEXATION OF UPPER BURMAH.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If the Council of India were consulted either by the late or the present Secretary of State on the question of the annexation of Upper Burmah, and if

  1219
  they were agreed in advising that the interests of India demanded the annexation of that Country; or, if not, who were the advisers of the late Secretary of State who expressed that opinion?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH): The orders on the subject to which the hon. Member refers were given by the late Secretary of State under the special powers by which the Secretary of State can deal with certain questions without submitting them to the Council. With regard to any other advisers, I must refer him to the late Secretary of State.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked if they were to understand that the Council of India had not been consulted by either the late or the present Indian Secretary?
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTHsaid, he had already answered the Question in regard to the late Secretary of State. As to the present Secretary of State, he reminded the hon. Gentleman that the annexation took place before he came into Office.

  ALLOTMENTS AND SMALL HOLDINGS— THE RETURN.
  MR. HENRY TOLLEMACHEasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether, considering the importance of the subject, the Government will lay upon the Table of this House the Return on the subject of Allotments and Small Holdings, which has been promised by the Lord President of the Council to the House of Lords?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY (Mr. HENEAGE),in reply, said, the Return promised by the Lord President of the Council to the House of Lords would be laid on the Table of the House of Commons also.

  POST OFFICE — PARCELS POST BETWEEN FRANCE AND ENGLAND.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Is the Postmaster General taking any further steps to induce the French Government to complete the connecting link for the parcels post between France and England, the system being in operation in the two countries?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. H. H. FOWLER): The
  1220
  Postmaster General is in active communication with the French Postal Administration as to the proposed Parcels Post between this country and France. Some questions of difficulty have presented themselves, which, however, it is hoped, will be shortly adjusted. In any event, before a Parcel Post Convention can be brought into operation it will have to be submitted to the French Chambers for ratification.

  POLLUTION OF THE THAMES—REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of the Government to take efficient steps to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Pollution of the Thames by the outfalls at Barking Creek and Crossness?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): This question has been repeatedly under the consideration of the Metropolitan Board, who have charge of the sewerage of London. They have not yet finally reported to me their conclusions; but I will press the Board for an early answer.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that 6,000 tons of liquid muck were emptied into the Thames every day at these points?
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that was a calculation he should be slow to accept the responsibility for; but there was ho question that the subject was a serious one.

  METROPOLIS — REORGANIZATION OF THE POLICE.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will now say in what way he proposes to make the further inquiry into the organisation of the Police Force of the Metropolis, which he stated his intention to undertake; and, whether he will engage that no such steps shall be taken until the House has had opportunity of expressing an opinion on the Report of the Committee now in the hands of Members?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): I propose to make my inquiry into the organization of the Police Force by means of a Departmental Com-

  1221
  mittee, over which. I shall myself preside. ["Oh!" and a laugh.] Yes; I am responsible for the organization, and I am not going to throw the responsibility upon others. I have not finally settled the names of the Committee; but, in all probability, whoever may be the new Chief Commissioner will be one. I also hope to have the assistance of Mr. Pemberton, now Assistant Under Secretary at the Home Office, and long a Member of this House, and of Mr. Pennefather, whose financial experience in police matters will be of great service to me. Perhaps I may be allowed to say, when on the point of instituting this inquiry, how much I regret the absence of the late Chief Commissioner, Sir Edmund Henderson, whose lengthened experience and intimate knowledge of the details of police administration would have been invaluable upon such an inquiry. I am afraid I do not quite understand the words "such steps" in the second Question. I shall certainly undertake this inquiry without waiting for any particular debate in this House. To-morrow my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch (Mr. James Stuart) has the first place on the Motion for Supply, and proposes to call attention to this subject. If Notice of a serious Motion be placed upon the Table, it will be sufficient time to consider whether any facilities would be required for its discussion.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, on the Motion which he has mentioned as coming on to-morrow, we shall have the opportunity of discussing the Ro-port of the Special Committee, and the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman himself in this matter?
  MR. CHILDERS: The only answer I can give is that the hon. Gentleman, if he wishes to discuss either the Report or my conduct, will be able to do so on the Motion of the hon. Member for Shoreditch.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Is there any objection to placing Sir Edmund Henderson on the Committee?
  MR. CHILDERS: It would hardly be right that a gentleman who has just retired or is just retiring from the Public Service should be asked to sit on the Committee; but means will be found, no doubt, of obtaining the advantage of Colonel Henderson's experience.

  ARMY CLOTHING FACTORY, PIMLICO.
  MR. ALBERT GREYasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether it is the case, as stated in The Pall Mall Gazette of February 22nd, that the wages of the workwomen employed in the Army Clothing Factory at Pimlico have been reduced 25 per cent, in the last year?
  MR. MAGNIACasked whether it is the fact, as currently reported, that the women in the factory referred to were working at starvation wages; and whether ho will give a Return showing the number of workers whose wages were respectively below and above 10s. per week in the week ending February 12?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. WOODALL)I shall be happy to give the Returns, and to include in them all the information I can. The statement referred to in the first Question is not accurate. The average wages of the women employed in the Army Clothing Factory during 1884 amounted to 15s. 8d. a week of actual earnings. The average for 1885 was 15s. 8½d. The corresponding average for the four weeks ending February 17 last was 17s. 1½d. Perhaps the numbers at different rates of wages will make the comparison more intelligible. In 1881 and 1885 respectively there were employed in all 1,259 and 1,399 women. Of these, 231 and 262 received respectively less than 10s. a week; 752 and 805 from 10s. to £1 a week; 254 and 291 from 20s. to 30s. a week; and 22 and 41 respectively over 30s. a week. I may add that certain Memorials and representations have been addressed to the Secretary of State concerning the general administration of the clothing factory, to which I am giving my own very careful attention.

  THE LONDON WATER COMPANIES.
  MR. ROBSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it is the intention of the Government to introduce, at an early date, a Bill dealing with the acquisition of the London Water Companies, so long looked forward to by the people of London?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): I am fully alive to the great importance of this question; but I think the question of the acquisition of the

  1223
  London Water Companies' property cannot be dissociated from the larger question of the government of London, as to which I hope to be able to make a statement in a few weeks.

  TRAMWAYS AND PUBLIC COMPANIES (IRELAND) ACT—THE WEST CLARE RAILWAY COMPANY.
  MR. COXasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Treasury, in the month of June last, intimated their willingness to aid undertakings under the Tramways (Ireland) Act by loans to be made through the Irish Board of Works, and the West Clare Railway Company applied in the same month for a loan on the security of shares having dividends guaranteed in perpetuity by the county of Clare; has the granting of this loan been delayed by the Board of Works down to the present time, although the adequacy of the proposed security is not questioned; has the result of this delay been that the works of the Railway had been partially suspended about two months ago, by which several hundred men were thrown out of employment; whether representations have reached the Government that great distress exists in the district; and, whether they will cause the Board of Works to hasten the completion of this loan, and enable the works to be resumed, which will give large and immediate employment where it is now so badly wanted?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. H. H. FOWLER)said, that serious legal difficulties had arisen in the way of granting to the West Clare Railway Company the loan for which they applied on the security offered by them. The Board of Public Works had had every desire to facilitate in every way in their power the advance of the loan, in order that the works might not be stopped, and that the railway might be completed and opened for traffic. Their Surveyor was now on the spot, and it was hoped that in the course of a few days his Report would be received, and such arrangements made as would enable the works, a portion of which only were suspended, to be resumed.

  THE POSTAL UNION—AUSTRALIA.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury,
  1224
  The names of the Australasian Colonies that have declined to join the Postal Union; is he aware that French mail steamers convey ten centime or one penny postal cards from France via Australia to New Caledonia; and, whether he will take steps to introduce penny postal cards between England and Australia in the interests of poor emigrants and their friends?
  The SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. H. H. FOWLER): The Australian Colonies were all represented at the Postal Union Congress which was held at Lisbon last year; and after considering the conditions on which they could be admitted into the Union they all declined to join for the present. It is true, as the hon. Member states, that postcards can be forwarded from France to New Caledonia for a postage of 10 centimes, or 1d. each. Pending admission of the Australian Colonies into the Postal Union, it has not been considered desirable to extend the postcard system from this country to Australia. No such arrangement could take place without the previous concurrence of the Colonies concerned; and, looking at the reduction of postage which would be involved by the introduction of 1d. postcards, it is by no means certain that they would acquiesce in any such arrangement.

  PUBLIC MEETINGS—SPEECH OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL AT BELFAST.
  MR. NEWNESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to language used in the north of Ireland, on Monday last, by a Member of this House, the late Secretary of State for India, to the following effect:—
  "In the north the great privileges you possess are worth defending, are worth demonstrating for, and, by Heaven, it may he they are worth fighting for. I do not myself fear that so heavy a trial could be put upon you, but I impress upon you to keep the organisation in perfect readiness;"
  and, whether he intends to prosecute the author of these words under the same Act which has been put in force with regard to the London Socialists?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): From no want of respect to the hon. Member who made the speech, but simply from want of time on my

  1225
  part, I have not properly read that speech so as to appreciate the whole of it. But the speech itself to which the hon. Member refers, and the language to which he objects, was not delivered in England; and, therefore, it is no part of my duty to consider its character in the aspect suggested by the Question.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to give Notice that if no action is taken in this matter-by the Government, I shall take the earliest opportunity open to me to move a Resolution to the effect that this House particularly regrets and condemns the public employment, by a Member of this House who has held high Office under the Crown and who continues to hold the Office of a Privy Councillor, of language designed to intimidate this House, and to excite bodies of persons in Ireland to the use of arms, in defiance of the will of this House and in opposition to the authority of the Crown.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I beg to give Notice, with regard to the Notice of Motion just now given by the hon. Member for Sligo, that if it should appear on the Faper to-morrow I shall ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will afford a very early day for its discussion?

  ARMY—ENFIELD SMALL ARMS FACTORY.
  LORD ALGERNON PERCYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that the War Office have sent orders to the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield to the effect that the number of workmen will be reduced by 300 on the 1st of April, thus throwing a large number of men out of employment during the time of the present prevailing distress?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN): No such order has been given. The number of workmen employed in a Government factory must, of course, depend on the money voted by parliament for the produce of that factory. The Vote to be asked for Enfield for next year's service is at present under consideration.

  IRISH ESTATES OF THE LONDON COMPANIES.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the attempt by the Salters' Company, the
  1226
  Ironmongers' Company, and other London Companies to make sale of their Derry estates; and, if the Government propose to do anything to prevent these Corporations making away with their property before the question can be legislatively dealt with?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE): I understand that in a very short time a Bill will be introduced by my right hon. Friend, whose Department it concerns, on the subject to which this Question refers, and which would embrace such cases as are mentioned in the Question. The further Question, whether that Bill can be extended to retrospective proceedings, is one which I am not so well able to answer at the present moment, not having a precise knowledge of the character of those proceedings.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly permit me to ask this Question—Whether his attention has been drawn to a recent notice issued by the agent of the Salters' Company in the following words:—
  "On being informed that you had refused to complete the purchase of your farm I consulted the Worshipful Company of Salters. I am now desired to give you notice that if the necessary steps to complete he not taken within one fortnight from this date, proceedings will he taken in the High Court of Chancery in Ireland to compel specific performance of your agreement to purchase, and that this notice will be used to fix you with the costs of such proceedings."
  MR. W.E.GLADSTONE: I am cognizant of the document which the hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted; but the answer I have previously given will, I think, convey a perfect and distinct intimation to the Companies concerned as to the intention of the Government.

  SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS.
  COLONEL BROOKFIELDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government propose to give any legislative effect to the opinion recently expressed by the House on the subject of small holdings and allotments?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE): In the debate to which this Question refers it was, I think, fully understood by the House, and was stated expressly by myself and others, that the preliminary condition of giving effect in any manner to the idea contained in the Motion would be the establishment of a thoroughly efficient local government.

  1227
  When Her Majesty's Government are able to propose to the House their Local Government Bill they will consider what steps they can properly take in the direction of the Motion which was carried on the occasion referred to.

  IRELAND—AUTHORITY OF THE CROWN.
  MR. BADEN-POWELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is correctly reported as having declared on 22nd February that—
  "Her Majesty's Government are very desirous to see the authority of the Crown in Ireland restored to that full state of efficiency which it enjoys in England and Scotland;"
  and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government have taken or are taking effectual steps to put an end forthwith to so alarming a state of affairs as is implied in this confession that the authority of the Crown is in a definite degree in abeyance in Ireland?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE): I thought that this Question had been answered by me more than once. With regard to the words ascribed to me, I have no complaint whatever to make of the report of my words. I have no doubt of their substantial accuracy. I considered, and still consider, that the efficiency of the authority of the Crown in any portion of Her Majesty's Dominions must be measured by the degree of fulness with which the Judicial and Administrative Departments of the Government attain the end for which they are appointed in the protection of personal liberty, property, and life. Well, Sir, I have stated more than once, and I apprehend it cannot be denied, that, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, the question of social order in Ireland requires close attention, and we are engaged in considering by what means we can obtain remedies for the existing state of things.
  MR. LALORasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If it is in accordance with the invitation conveyed in his letter of the 12th instant to Lord De Vesci, seeking information in reference to the wants and wishes of the Irish people, that Lord De Vesci, through his agent Mr. Fitzherbert, has been trying to compel his labourers and small tenants to sign a document protesting against Home Rule for Ireland, and, at the same time, compelling those labourers who signed the
  1228
  paper to remit a portion of their week's wages in order to pay expenses?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE): In regard to the first part of the Question, the object of my letter to Lord de Vesci was to make it known, for the purpose of obviating possible misapprehensions, that I should be very glad to receive information of the wants and wishes of the people of Ireland from those best qualified to describe them, quite irrespective of parties or opinions. I do not see the connection between the object of that letter and the report which the Question recites. I am aware of no such proceeding on the part of Lord de Vesci or his agent. I have never known Lord de Vesci except in the character of a most humane, kind, and estimable man; and I should be very slow indeed to credit without evidence any report to a contrary effect. I have no information supporting the report here mentioned; and I do not find, upon telegraphic inquiry, that the Government of Ireland are in possession of any such information.

MOTION.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  MR. GLADSTONE,in rising to move—
  "That the Orders of the Day subsequent to the Order for the Committee on the Land Registry Bill [Lords] he postponed until after the Notice of Motion for the introduction of a Bill relating to Crofters in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland,"
  said, that when they approached 10 o'clock the Government would ask the House to report Progress, in order to enable his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland to bring forward his Motion.
  Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1885–6).
  Supply—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1885–6).

    Class IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.
    (1.) £460, London University.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: I wish to call the attention of Her Majesty's

    1229
    Government to the fact that the University of London is treated in a manner in which no other University in the Kingdom is treated. The fees of the University are paid into the Public Chest, and every 1d. paid by the University has to be accounted for to a Public Department, and has to be voted by this House. If hon. Members will turn to the next Vote they will find that University College, Wales, is allowed the sum of £4,000 to spend as it likes; £2,550 has already been granted to that Body, and this is a Supplementary Vote for £750. If hon. Members will look at the Vote for the Scotch Universities they will find that a sum of money is also given to them to spend as they like. Now, the University of London has already existed for 50 years. Earl Granville is the Chancellor of the University, and Sir James Paget Vice Chancellor; and, in my opinion, the University, through its Senate, is in every way capable of managing the affairs of the University if it has a suitable grant given to it by Parliament. That, I believe, would be a much better course than to retain the present system of asking the House to vote particular items. If hon. Members will look at this Vote they will find that the sum of £460 which appears in the Estimates has come from the extension of the work of the University. As a member of the Senate of the University, I may say that there are many other extensions of the work of the University which might be undertaken by the University, if it were not for the trouble caused by the necessity for their being submitted to the scrutiny of the Government. About two years ago an appeal was made to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer for an allowance to the University of London for the purpose of giving it autonomy in these matters; and that proposal was viewed by him with favour, and would have been acted upon if special circumstances had not arisen which caused a postponement. If hon. Members will examine the Estimates, they will find that a larger sum is received from fees this year than was received in the year before; and that result, instead of being brought about by the grants made out of the Revenues of this country, is due to the system of examination adopted by the University of London for many years past, and which has been of so sa-
    1230
    tisfactory a character as to induce a larger number of students to enter the University. It is hardly fair, however, that the University should receive no benefit from its growing prosperity; and I, therefore, claim on its behalf that in future the Government should give a lump sum to the University, instead of putting down in the Votes every year the charges which have to be borne by the University. I find that the amount received from fees last year was £10,900, while the total amount required for the expenses of the University was £12,000. Consequently, the University only cost the Government at the present moment £2,000; but in some years it has cost £4,000, £5,000, £6,000, and even £7,000 above the fees; therefore, in my opinion, if a grant of £5,000 a-year were given to the University, which would be a less sum than is given to some of the small Scotch Universities, the University of London would only be put on the footing it is entitled to occupy. I earnestly hope that the Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider this matter with the view of no longer placing a detailed charge upon the Estimates with regard to the University of London, but of giving a lump sum of £5,000 to the University, on the same principle as large sums are now given to the Scotch Universities.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. H. H. FOWLER): I think the suggestion which my hon. Friend has made is a very valuable one; but I would submit that the case which the hon. Baronet has to urge would come with greater force when the Vote for the University of London is proposed for next year. The present Vote of £460 is only a Supplementary sum in order to make up a deficiency which has occurred. As far as the main questions are concerned, the grant from Parliament for the Universities is practically decreasing. If it is proposed now to make a new departure it will require considerable discussion, and may, perhaps, raise the grave question whether, under existing circumstances, Parliament ought to make any grant at all to this University. It must be borne in mind that the circumstances which exist in 1886 are very different from these which existed in 1836 when these grants were first made, and the proposal of my hon. Friend might raise the whole question whether the

    1231
    House would be justified in making any grant at all. I do not wish, however, to forestall the discussion of that question; but I shall be happy, when the regular Estimates are brought forward, to discuss the matter at greater length. I do not know that any information is needed by the Committee as to this particular Vote; but I may say that, so far as the Public Revenue is concerned, the additional amount seems to be more than counterbalanced by an increase of fees.
    MR. BRUNNER: It seems tome that the aim of the Government ought to be to encourage the University of London to do better and better work. If the work done 50 years ago was worth a certain sum per year, it seems to me that it is now worth at least twice the same amount of money.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: The late Chancellor of the Exchequer, now Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Childers), was good enough to say, after he had examined the matter, that he thought a grant ought to be given to the University of London; because, instead of inducing the University to spend as little as possible, they ought to be encouraged to spend more. I must confess that, in my opinion, it is by no means liberal—nay, rather somewhat shabby—for a public official who seems to know nothing of the matter to say that it is questionable whether the only public money voted for University purposes in the South of England ought not to be done away with altogether, when upon the very next Vote the same hon. Gentleman will have to stand up and support a considerable Vote for a University in Wales.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. H. H. FOWLER): I expressed no opinion as to the propriety of the Vote at all; and, so far from being ignorant of the merits of the question, I was speaking from information which had been supplied to me by the highest authority. No doubt, my hon. Friend is correct in the statement which he has made with regard to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and with regard to that matter I expressed no opinion whatever. I think there can be no desire on the part of the Government to make a profit out of the University fees. The net charge in regard to the University of
    1232
    London is £3,600; and all I suggested was that, if a proposal were made to increase that grant, the question might be raised whether the State ought to be called upon to make any grant at all.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I quite agree with the Secretary to the Treasury that the Committee will be able to discuss the matter in a more suitable manner when they come to the main Vote. But, at the same time, I think the remarks made by the Secretary to the Treasury, if they are left uncontradicted, would produce an erroneous impression out-of-doors. It might be supposed that, although there was a strong case for a grant when the University of London was first founded, it is less needed now, on account of the action which has since been taken by the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. On the contrary, the fact is that a much larger number of persons now take degrees in the University of London than at any former period, and there are a very large number of persons for whom the University of London is the only University open. So far from the case of the University being weaker than it was at the time of its foundation, my hon. Friend will find, when he takes into consideration the amount of work done and the number of persons who take degrees, that it is very much stronger than ever it was. I think that the University of London may fairly claim that the small sum voted by this House is well spent, and that the University has never been doing more or better work than at the present moment.
    MR. RYLANDS: I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury that this is a matter which had better be discussed when we have the regular Estimates before us. I am not inclined to differ from my hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) as to the fact that the University is doing more work now than in former years. If it is, it is compensated, to a certain extent, by the amount of fees it receives; and I believe that the fees it receives amount to a larger sum year by year. I believe that, as my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury has stated, there is no disposition on the part of the Government to make a profit out of the University. What the Government do is this—they pay a sum of money which is considered

    1233
    by the best authorities to be the sum necessary to maintain the University of London in a state of efficiency; and it appears that the fees received by the University itself gradually approach nearer and nearer the sum voted by Parliament. But I do not suppose, if the fees were so increased as to become in excess of the Vote, that under such circumstances the Government would wish to keep back any portion of them. On the contrary, I think there is a general desire that the University of London should have every support it can obtain in that way. But I wish to remind the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) that there is some difference in the situation of the University now as compared with what it was some years ago. We have now Universities springing up in other parts of the Kingdom; and I am glad to think that an important University—the Victoria University at Manchester—has not only the power of granting degrees, but that it has other important educational advantages which it is able to confer upon a very large and populous district. It is quite clear that if we are to make this a question of increasing the grant to the University of London, it will be necessary to open up a much wider question than my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras (Sir Julian Goldsmid) imagines.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: My hon. Friend does not appear to be aware that the Scotch Universities receive a grant from this House, and that they, nevertheless, appropriate the fees paid by the students to their own purposes. My contention is that the University of London should be allowed to use the fees paid by the students in the same way that other Colleges and Universities do which receive a Government grant. If that course were followed, I believe that it would be of great advantage to the University itself. I may add that the University of London is the only great institution in the South of England which has the power of conferring degrees in the way required by a large number of students; and therefore I think that a considerable grant in aid ought to be given to that University, especially when we find that a sum of £4,000 is to be given to a little pokey College in Wales. I cannot understand why, under such circumstances,
    1234
    a sum of £5,000 should be considered too much for the University of London, which has been in existence for 50 years, and which has in its Senate a body of the highest distinction quite capable of managing the affairs of the University without submitting them to the supervision of the Treasury. I hope that the matter will be thoroughly considered before the regular Estimates are brought on this year.
    CAPTAIN VERNEY: I am quite sure that the hon. Member who has just sat down has never extended his travels as far as Aberystwyth, because I am satisfied that if he had ever seen that remarkable and beautiful building he would never have alluded to it as a "pokey little College." I am proud to say that I am a member of the Senate of that College.
    Vote agreed to.
    (2.) £750, University Colleges, Wales.
    (3.) £27,700, Public Education, Ireland.
    MR. P. M'DONALD: Before this Vote is agreed to, I wish to call the attention of the Committee to the condition of the National School teachers. They have many grievances to complain of; but I will only trouble the Committee with those which are most pressing, and the first of them is the insufficiency of the remuneration which they receive. They are very much under-paid as compared with the elementary school teachers of England and Scotland. They do not receive quite two-thirds of the salary of the English elementary teachers, and they are not as well paid as the ordinary artizans of Ireland; in fact, their emoluments are very much below the pay received by the ordinary Police Force. But there is another and, perhaps, a still greater grievance in the manner in which they are housed. It is only in the towns that accommodation can be had by the teachers. I have been informed, and in some cases I am aware, that in the country districts they have to walk throe, four, and, in some instances, five miles from their residences to the schools. Even the female teachers have to do the same. I think the Committee will admit that that is a state of things which ought not to exist; but, at the present moment, they can find no accommoda-

    1235
    tion nearer the schools than miserable cabins totally unfit for educated people, with any nicety of taste, to live in. Therefore, I consider that the condition of the teachers, as regards the manner in which they are housed, ought to receive immediate attention at the hands of Her Majesty's Government. Another matter of complaint on the part of the teachers is that they are not placed on the Pension List like other public servants. I maintain that they ought, at least, to be treated as well as the junior Civil servants—at any rate, as well as the Excisemen and the Policemen. That, however, is not the case. As they discharge duties second only to the clergyman of the parish, and they ought to be placed in a position that would, at least, command for them the respect of the people. If nothing is done to improve their condition it is quite evident that they will be unable to exercise authority and discharge the duties necessary to the position they occupy. The duties thrown upon them are of a very arduous nature, and every effort should be made by the Government to secure for them the necessary respect of parents and pupils. There is one other point which I desire to mention, and it is this—the desirability of introducing without delay technical teaching into the schools. Last autumn very exhaustive evidence was given on that subject before Sir Eardley Wilmot's Committee; and I believe there was a consensus of opinion in that Committee that technical education was a subject which ought to receive immediate attention at the hands of the Government. Now, I consider that we ought, in this matter of technical education, to begin at the beginning, and that is in the elementary schools. I am pleased to learn that a beginning has been made by the Commissioners by the introduction of that admirable text-book, Handicraft for Handy People; but, instead of requiring the pupils to buy it, there ought to be 50 copies presented free to each school. In the second place, we should have normal or district schools, perhaps one or two for each county; and they ought to be established so that they would be able to educate technically the youths in such districts in the trades and manufacturing operations suited to the locality, and which required to be developed. I believe that we have al-
    1236
    ready existing in Ireland institutions which might take the place, for the present, of these technical schools—I allude to the workhouse schools; but I consider that the education given in these workhouse schools is such that youths so instructed, when sent into the world, are unable to shift for themselves; and I regret to say that in consequence they very often go from the workhouse into the gaol. Such a state of things should no longer be allowed to exist. They should be taught the use of their hands and eyes. Instruct them in some useful trade or occupation, so that when they go abroad they will be able to find some employment, and no longer become a burden upon the public. We have also other institutions in Ireland—the industrial schools, where, already, the managers of the schools are very ably carrying out the intentions of the founders. They are instructing the youths placed under their care in trades that will fit them to find a ready means of employment after they leave these establishments; but I think the Government ought to give increased grants to these industrial schools, so that the technical education carried on should be made more perfect. In the first place, however, the Government ought to apply themselves to the workhouse schools, and place in each two or three men trained and capable of imparting instruction in some particular trade or occupation. I hope, therefore, that before the Estimates of the year are brought on these matters will receive the attention of the Government, and that some steps will have been taken in the direction I have indicated.
    MR. PENROSE FITZGERALD: I am very glad that the attention of the Committee has been called to the subject of the inadequacy of the pay of the National Schoolteachers in Ireland, and I am glad that I am able to speak on the same side of the question as the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. It is a fact, and a notorious fact to anyone who knows anything of the subject, that the National School teachers of Ireland are not sufficiently paid; and I venture to remind the Committee that there is no body of men to whom we must more look for the future of the young of Ireland than the teachers of the National Schools. I would not have presumed to occupy the time of the Committee if the

    1237
    hon. Member who has just sat down had not omitted one other part of the claim of the National teachers, which calls, I think, for the immediate interference of Her Majesty's Government; and that is that their pay, inadequate as it is, is worse than inadequate, because it is uncertain. What I refer to is the power which now rests with the Boards of Guardians in Ireland either to increase or not to increase the pay of the National School teachers at their will or discretion, by voting a sum of money per annum as an addition to their ordinary remuneration. In the Board of Guardians with which I am acquainted, it not un-frequently happens that in one year a sum of money is voted for the teachers in the Union; but after they have enjoyed it for one year it is possible by some accident—perhaps by a whip being made by some of the Guardians who are careful of the public purse—that the decision formally arrived at is reversed, and next year the pay the teachers thought from the previous vote of the Board of Guardians they were entitled to receive is cut down, and they are deprived of an addition to their salary of £20 or £30 a-year, which they thought they wore fairly entitled to look forward to. I therefore urge upon the Government to take into consideration whether the pay of the National School teachers of Ireland should not at least be made certain. I can hardly hope that Her Majesty's Government will be guided altogether by the views of the hon. Member who has just sat down upon technical education; but I sincerely trust that they will, at any rate, take the subject into consideration. It is one which the people of Ireland have much at heart. It is one in which I have myself taken a deep interest, and I know of no subject which is more calculated to confer advantage upon the country.
    MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: I am anxious to say a word in support of the view which has been expressed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge (Mr. P. Fitzgerald). There can be no doubt that the uncertainty which exists in regard to the salary of the National school teachers is one of the most pressing of the immediate grievances this deserving body have to complain of. The salary of the National teachers in Ireland is derived from three sources.
    1238
    One portion of the salary is a certain fixed annual sum, another portion of it is made contingent on the will of the local Guardians as to whether they will throw it upon the rates or not, and a third portion of their emoluments is derived from the gratuities given to them from the parents or guardians of the children. The system works in such a manner that, in the richest districts in Ireland, where the National teachers have a fair allowance from the parents and guardians of the children in the shape of school fees, they have also the other two portions of the salary made certain; because, as a general rule, it is in the wealthiest parts of the country that the Guardians contribute out of the rates, and by so doing enable the school teachers to derive the whole benefit of the system. But in the poorer districts of Ireland, where the Guardians are not able to make a contribution out of the rates, and where the parents contribute very little, if at all, in the shape of school fees—and these are the very districts where education is most required— it will be found that the teachers are very inadequately remunerated. The only emolument they receive is the salary granted annually by the National Board of Education; and because the local Boards of Guardians are so poor, or so ungenerous, as not to contribute a certain sum out of the rates, the teachers are not only deprived of that portion which the Guardians do not contribute, but are also deprived of that portion which the National Board are willing to give contingent upon a certain sum being provided by the Guardians. I think this is a matter which deserves the immediate attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant; and I am sure that when he applies his mind to the case he will see that this is a pressing grievance, falling heavily upon the poor teachers of Ireland, which demands a remedy.
    MR. EVERETT: I would like to make a remark upon one of the suggestions which has been made by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. P. M'Donald)— namely, that the Government should give pensions to the Irish schoolmasters. Now, there are many taxpayers in this country who think that the pension system has already been extended quite far enough. We, who have to find the money to pay pensions to other people,

    1239
    have nothing in the shape of pensions provided for ourselves except the poor rates or the workhouse. No doubt, it is a very pleasant thing to receive a pension; but, seeing the difficulty of raising the money which is necessary in order to pay pensions, I would respectfully submit that the time is come when, instead of making any extension of the system of pensioning our public servants, we ought rather to be disposed to inquire, in our future arrangements for the Public Service, whether it is not desirable to adopt the system which prevails in regard to private employment— namely, to pay a workman for the full value of the work he performs, leaving him to make a provision for his own future maintenance.
    MR. SEXTON: I sympathize with what the hon. Gentleman has stated; but I am afraid that he is not very much acquainted with this particular subject. He is labouring under the embarrassment of applying an abstract theory without having made the particular subject to which he wishes to apply it a matter of investigation. Our complaint is not so much of the inadequacy of the pension itself, as of the fact that the men and women we employ are obliged to serve so long before they become eligible for a pension that the pension is of no use to them when they get it. A man commences to serve as a teacher at the age of 18 or 20; and it is only when he reaches the age of 65, and in the case of a woman when she reaches the age of 60, that a pension of a very reasonable amount comes to them. We think that the pension ought to be made available at an earlier age than that. I will also tell the hon. Gentleman another fact—namely, that the British Exchequer has accomplished a remarkable feat in connection with the matter of Irish education. Formerly an annual payment of £7,000 was made out of the Imperial Purse; but a few years ago another system was established by which the grant of £7,000 from the Imperial Purse was discontinued, and the cost placed upon the local ratepayers. I think it is out of the sphere of argument that the National School teachers are wretchedly paid, and the advantages which have often been promised them have been too long deferred. The only question now is, in what manner and to what extent the Government are pre-
    1240
    pared to give them redress? We should all regret if it is thought necessary to postpone the consideration of the subject until after that other question of Imperial politics which is about to be brought forward. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will consider whether the two questions are inextricably blended; but if not, I trust we may indulge in a hope that he may be able to make some cheering statement to-night.
    MR. P. J. POWER: I am fully prepared to endorse the statement of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. P. M'Donald) in regard to the defective accommodation for the housing of the school teachers. In many instances, owing to the difficulty of obtaining suitable accommodation, they have to walk four or five statute miles to the school, teach the children all day, and then return to their homes. I hope the Government will see their way to the making of some concession in this matter, and that, at any rate, something will be done to make the salaries of the teachers more certain than they are at present. I must remind the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that the Government have themselves to thank for the salaries of these persons being so uncertain. If they had made the education of the Irish people in harmony with the wishes of the Irish people, I venture to say—and I speak from some experience—that the majority of Unions in Ireland would have readily become contributors towards the salaries. They are not contributors at present, because they believe they would stultify themselves if they were to contribute towards the maintenance of a system which they oppose, and which, under the name of National, is as anti-National as can well be imagined. I hope that, as vacancies occur in the National Board of Education, the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who has shown his sympathy with the Irish people in many respects, will endeavour to place upon the Board individuals who are more in harmony with the feelings of the Irish people. The National Board, as at present constituted, does not possess the confidence of the Irish people; and it acts in a most dictatorial way upon many subjects. In the constituency which I have the honour to represent— Waterford—some time since the managers of a convent school decided on

    1241
    placing their school under the National Board. Over the building where the schools were conducted stood a stone cross. The National Board of Education compelled the nuns to remove this cross, contending that its remaining there was against the spirit of the National Education in Ireland. Can it be imagined that in the 19th century, and in a Catholic country, a National Board, supposed to govern the education of the people upon National principles, should have been so anti-National in their proceedings as to insist upon the removal of this cross? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will undertake to bring in a measure upon this question, if it is not included in that other measure to which reference has been made; and I trust that some endeavour will be made to render the education of the Irish people in conformity with the wishes of the people. If this is done, the taunt which has been cast against the Irish Board of Guardians will at once be removed, and they will readily become ungrudging contributors to the cost of National Education.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I have listened with great interest to the remarks which have been made by hon. Members from Ireland, and by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald). I have long been aware of the great interest which is taken in Ireland in the question of the position and remuneration of the National School teachers. Although I have only been in Office for a very short time I have not been idle. I have endeavoured to acquire all the information I could as to the position of these teachers; and I have listened to their demands, and considered the weight which ought to be attached to them. But I think the Committee will see that this is hardly the occasion on which I might be expected to enter upon so wide a question. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. P. M'Donald) goes very far indeed when he asks me to say whether this matter will form part of another question with which Her Majesty's Government will have to deal. I must certainly defer giving an answer to that question at the present moment. What has been very truly pointed out in regard to the condition of the National
    1242
    School teachers is its liability to fluctuation; but, so far as tie present Estimate is concerned, it is satisfactory to find that the fluctuation in the amount is a fluctuation in the right direction. All Parties in tie Committee will feel satisfaction in voting money for what all must admit to be a good cause. There is a larger number of pupils on the books than in the previous year, an increase in the average daily attendance, and, what is most satisfactory of all, an increase in the general results achieved. The consequence of all this is directly favourable to the teachers themselves. It has re-acted upon them. They have been stimulated to make more zealous efforts for their own self-improvement, and to seek for a higher standard of classification and inspection. The opening of the denominational Training Colleges has also stirred them up to renewed efforts, and awakened in them a natural desire for promotion. The result of the examinations accounts for the increase in the expenditure, that result having been beyond the calculation which was made at the time the original Estimate was framed; and of this Supplementary Vote of £27,700, no less than £6,000 arises from an increase in the salaries of the teachers, £8,000 from the result fees classified as unconditional, and £7,000 from gifts; so that no less than £21,000 go in the direction of meeting some of the complaints which have been made in the course of the discussion. I can only promise that when the general Estimate is framed I shall be prepared with rather more mature views on this question than I am able to express at the present moment.
    MR. DEASY: Upon this question I only desire to say a few words. I accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that he will look into the whole matter between this and the framing of the general Estimates of the year; and I trust that the House will then be much better informed as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the wants of the National School teachers of Ireland than they are now. For myself, and speaking for other Members of the Irish Party, we might say a great deal about the treatment which the Irish National School teachers have received at the hands of successive Governments. During the past 10 or 12 years promises have fre-

    1243
    quently been made that their position should be materially improved; but, like most promises emanating from the British Government, they have been invariably broken. I trust that a new order of things will now prevail; and that the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Irish Department will carry out the intentions he has expressed to-night, and be able to do something substantial for a very deserving, although hitherto a very unfortunate, class of the Irish people — the Irish teachers, to whose charge is committed almost the whole care of the future education of the Irish population. I am glad that in this matter I am able to agree with the aims of the Patriotic and Loyal Union of Ireland; and, having regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald), I can only regret that the hon. Member was not in Parliament when his Government were in power, and able to give valuable assistance to the Irish Members in this direction. If he had been, I have no doubt that he would have exerted himself to better the condition of the Irish National teachers. I am glad to find that no serious opposition is likely to be offered to any proposition that may be made for assisting the National School teachers. I have only one word more to offer, and it is on behalf of the teachers employed in the workhouses. These teachers have not been as well treated even as the ordinary teachers; and it is a great shame, I think, that they who are confined within the walls of the workhouses in Ireland, having the lowest class of children to instruct, should not receive more consideration than that which they at present obtain from the National Board. I strongly object to the way in which these teachers are treated; and one result of the system is that the instruction of the pauper children in these establishments is left entirely in the hands of young and incompetent teachers, as is now the case; because when a young workhouse teacher passes his examinations and becomes a first or second-class teacher he resigns his position and takes up a school outside. I consider that the duty of the workhouse school teachers is infinitely more arduous than that of the teachers of the ordinary National Schools. They have to deal with a totally different class of people;
    1244
    and if the condition of any teachers in Ireland calls for immediate improvement, I would venture to suggest that particular attention should be paid to the position of teachers in the workhouse schools. As regards the industrial training in the workhouses by the National School teachers, I think that is a question which must be left over for a later Vote; but it is one which ought not to be overlooked by the Chief Secretary in the course of any inquiries he proposes to make. I scarcely think that the employment of National School teachers to instruct children in this useful branch of education will commend itself to the Committee; nor do I think it is the proper mode of conducting such instruction. On the contrary, I think that the industrial training of children in the workhouses is a matter which ought to be dealt with by itself, and it is certainly one of the most important questions which can be brought before a Committee of this House. I will only add that I feel perfectly satisfied, after the speech we have heard from the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, that there will be a full and satisfactory provision laid before us when we come to discuss the matter more formally.
    Vote agreed to.

    CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES.
    (4.) £3,000, Slave Trade Services.
    (5.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,200, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886, in aid of Colonial Local Revenue, and to defray the Salaries and Allowances of Governors, &c, and other Charges connected with the Colonies, including Expenses incurred under 'The Pacific Islanders Protection Act, 1875.'"
    MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask if this Vote has anything to do with the Canadian Volunteers for the Expedition against Riel?
    MR. CREMER: I would also ask for information concerning this Vote. What have the Canadians done to entitle them to medals to be paid for by the taxpayers of this country?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. H. H. FOWLER): Part of the Vote is for the cost of medals to

    1245
    Volunteers in Canada who served in the recent Expedition against Riel; it has nothing to do with the services of the Canadian Militia. The Canadian Volunteers performed a great public service; and, in the opinion of the Canadian Government and of the Home Government, it was a fit and proper recognition of their services that a medal should be granted to them by the Imperial Government.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Last year, when I put a Question in reference to the suppression of Kiel's rebellion, and the causes from which the rebellion itself had sprung, all information was denied; but, nevertheless, this country is now called upon to pay for medals for the Canadian Volunteers. It is only a natural thing that men who behave well on the field of battle should be rewarded; but my complaint is that when I put a Question last year as to the rebellion of Riel, and asked for information in regard to the grievances of the Indians and Half-breeds in the North-West of Canada, I could get no information whatever. Unfortunately, it is too frequently the case that no information can be obtained with regard to Colonial questions. We are now asked, in this case, to pay for the cost of those medals; but why should not the Canadian Government pay for their own medals themselves? They entered upon the war for the benefit of their own country, and the least they can do is to pay the wages and rewards of their soldiers. The door ought either to be open or shut; and if it is right that this country should be called upon to provide the rewards intended to be given to the Canadian soldiers we ought to pay the wages of the soldiers as well. We should either do that, or have nothing to do with them at all. We did not care to send out soldiers to Canada to put down the rebellion there; and why should we give the men engaged in suppressing it silver pieces in the shape of medals, when we decline to give them silver pieces to put in their pockets? We have heard too much already of this rebellion, which arose out of a renewed attempt at insurrection on the part of this unfortunate man—Riel—who appears to have been a confirmed lunatic, and ought to have been confined in an asylum. Instead of taking that course the Canadian Government took him and hung him, and they hung a number of
    1246
    other Indians at the same time, in a way that was not altogether creditable to the Canadian Volunteers. Under these circumstances, I shall certainly divide the Committee against this Vote. If we want to go to war with the Indians, or with anybody else, let us go to war in a just cause; but we ought not, in a case like this, to be called upon to pay anything either for medals or in the shape of soldiers' wages. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote.
    THE CHAIRMAN: By the whole sum?
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Yes; by the entire sum charged in connection with the cost of these medals.
    MR. CREMER: The answer which the Secretary to the Treasury gave just-now to a question I addressed to the Committee was not quite understood in this quarter of the House. I asked distinctly whether the sum named in the Estimate was for the purpose of rewarding the Volunteers who suppressed the rebellion of the Half-breeds; but the reply of the hon. Gentleman, so far as it was understood, was unsatisfactory, and I shall certainly join with the hon. Member for South Londonderry (Mr. T. M. Healy) in opposing the Vote. I believe the feeling extensively prevails that those Half-breeds were goaded into rebellion by the injustice with which they were treated by the Canadian Government; and I cannot understand why, when a Government has driven its subjects into rebellion, the British taxpayer should be called upon to reward the soldiers engaged in suppressing the rebellion into which these unfortunate Canadian subjects were goaded. It seems to me that those of us who have the interests of the people at heart, and who represent the poorer class of the taxpayers, would be wanting in our duty unless we gave a distinct and sturdy opposition to this Vote.
    MR. HOOPER: I certainly heard nothing from the hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Bench on the other side of the House to justify the Committee in voting this sum. After all, we must not lose sight of the policy which led to the Expedition against Riel. The whole matter was one which had reference to the internal policy of the Canadian Dominion, and it was a matter in which the Canadian troops were alone engaged. I, therefore, take

    1247
    it that neither the Government of this country nor the taxpayers were consulted as to the merits of the policy pursued by the Canadian Government; and I take it that if we vote this sum now we shall most decidedly be giving the sanction of this House and of this country to the merits of a policy which was entered into by the Canadian Dominion after consultation with the Imperial Government. Under these circumstances, and not approving of the policy which led to the execution of Kiel, I consider that Members sitting upon these Benches are perfectly entitled to divide the Committee against the Vote, more especially when it is manifest that the question of policy is the one which underlies the Vote.
    MR. JOHNSTON: Hon. Members below the Gangway on this side of the House always show their sympathy with rebels against the British power and the Queen's authority in all parts of the world. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: Civil war.] In this case a notorious rebel was trying his hand for a second time at insurrection, and to put down British power in Canada; but the loyal Volunteers of Canada, a large proportion of whom, I am happy to say, are Orangemen, always prepared to vindicate the honour of the British Government, volunteered to go to the North-West Provinces, and having gone there succeeded in putting down the rebellion against British authority. That being so, I think it would have been a very ungrateful act on the part of Her Majesty's Government, and of the House of Commons, if they were to fail to recognize the loyalty of the Volunteers of the Dominion of Canada, and were to refuse to make this small recognition of their services that is asked from the Committee in the Vote to-night. Hon. Members below the Gangway on this side of the House have made themselves familiar with these sort of matters in Ireland; and I cannot forget that cheers were given for the Mahdi whenever an attack was made upon the British troops in the Soudan. The Mahdi found no want of sympathizers in Ireland amongst those who would like to see the British Flag lowered and trampled in the dust. Hon. Members below the Gangway have sympathized on every occasion with the enemies of England and of the Crown of England. And the sentiments uttered to-night
    1248
    below the Gangway only show that feeling which is ever ready to express itself whenever there is an opportunity of sympathizing with rebellion against British authority, and expressing a desire to bring dishonour upon the British Flag. I hope the Committee will not listen to the arguments which have been advanced to-night; but as I am quite sure that the loyal Volunteers of Canada are fully entitled to these medals I trust that nothing will be done in this House to deprive them of the reward they have so well merited.
    MR. RYLANDS: I do hope that the Committee will not be led into a discussion which strikes me as going altogether beyond the purpose of this Vote. We are not here to sit in judgment upon the Canadian policy, or upon the acts of the Canadian Government. For my own part, I have a high opinion of the ability of the Canadian Government, and perfect confidence that in the steps which they took with regard to the rebellion they took steps which they considered to be necessary for the welfare of the Dominion. The point for the consideration of this Committee is altogether a different one. It is whether the Canadian Government, having its own Administration, and paying its own administrative expenses, should not also have authority to confer any reward it may deem necessary to mark its appreciation of the services rendered by its soldiers. As to loyalty, or want of loyalty, that has nothing to do with the question. I may not be of the same opinion altogether as hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on the other side of the House; but I am quite sure that this is a kind of expenditure, out of British taxes, which will not be satisfactory to the people of this country. I do not wish to deprecate, for a moment, the policy of the Canadian Government, or the services rendered by the Canadian Volunteers. The accounts which I read in the newspapers certainly redounded to the honour and credit of the Volunteers; but I must say that I have not heard from my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury any reason sufficient to justify this Vote. I strongly suspect that my hon. Friend is only the mouthpiece of the late Government; and that if he would make a clean breast of it it would be found that this Imperial idea was sprung in the mind of some Member of the late Government,

    1249
    and that it was the late Government which proposed to give these medals, and not the occupants of the present Treasury Bench. I shall be very glad, indeed, if my hon. Friend will withdraw this Vote. Otherwise I shall feel bound, although with some reluctance I admit, to vote against it.
    MR. LANE: I cannot find that there is any precedent for a Vote of this kind; and I strongly object to the establishment of a precedent which may be hereafter made use of to justify similar expenditure. I may add that, personally, I oppose the Vote on the same grounds as my hon. Friend the Member for Derry (Mr. T. M. Healy)—namely, that the Volunteers of Canada were engaged in suppressing a rebellion, with which we, as the Representatives of an oppressed people in Ireland, naturally sympathize. In addition to that fact, I am afraid that a Precedent might be established for spending the taxes of the people of this country in rewarding with medals the Indian troops who have been lately engaged in the suppression of the Burmese and Egyptian "rebellions." I am, therefore, bound (oppose this Vote. I trust that the Committee will take no notice whatever of the arguments which have been put before it by the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. W. Johnston), who, with the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), has lately been proving his loyalty to the Crown by preaching rebellion in Belfast. I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Derry (Mr. T. M. Healy) will persist in dividing against the Vote, which, I think, ought to be rejected upon the simple ground that it would establish a very dangerous precedent for the future in regard to the manner in which the money of the taxpayers of the country at large is to be expended.
    MR. SEXTON: The hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. W. Johnston) has altogether misrepresented the remarks which fell from my hon. Friend the Member for Derry (Mr. T. M. Healy). My hon. Friend did not speak upon the merits of the question at all; but he said he thought that the Government of Canada would, have acted more wisely if, instead of executing Kiel, they had confined him in a lunatic asylum. My hon. Friend said that Riel was a man of strong convictions and very excitable tempera-
    1250
    ment; but he undoubtedly holds—and I hold—that certain incidents connected with that rebellion, and the punishment of it, did not redound to the general credit of the country. The statement of my hon. Friend was that the Canadian Government have not only their own Administration, but their own Treasury. They initiated and carried on the Expedition, and brought to a close the rebellion in the North-West. They paid the wages of their soldiers, and they ought also to have rewarded them. That is the simple position of matters, and not that which has been put forward by the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. W. Johnston), who has entirely misrepresented the drift of the argument addressed to the Committee by my hon. Friend. The Government of Canada actually pay the salary of the Governor General whom we send out from this country; and I am at a loss to understand why the Mother Country should be asked to pay for such an expenditure as this. There is only one other point. I have always understood that the presentation of military medals was intended as a reward for distinguished bravery. I should like to know how many soldiers were engaged in suppressing this rebellion? I see that 5,250 medals have been issued, and I should like to know whether every soldier who took part in the suppression of the rebellion has been granted a medal for distinguished bravery?
    Mr. LABOUCHERE: I think that the Canadian Government ought to take an example from the United States in this matter, considering that Canada itself is in America. No medals of any kind were given by the United States to the soldiers who were engaged in putting down the Great Rebellion there. It was thought an undesirable thing that anyone should go about the country with a medal for having killed some of his fellow-countrymen. But if the Canadian Government choose to take a different view, let them pay for it themselves. Why should we do so? They have no right to expect that this country should pay for medals presented to their soldiers. I hope there will be a division upon the Vote, and that there will be a majority against this perfectly ridiculous and wicked charge.
    Sir ROBERT PEEL: I entirely endorse the opinion which has been expressed by the hon. Member for

    1251
    Burnley (Mr. Rylands) and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). I really think that this is a very bad precedent to set. I understand that it has been already stated by an hon. Member that there is no precedent for awarding medals, under such circumstances, to, soldiers not engaged in a war against the enemies of this country; and I think it is a serious matter for consideration whether it is proper that we should establish a precedent now. Certainly, when the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. W. Johnston) stands up in the House of Commons and asks the Government to justify this grant on the plea that the Volunteers employed were Orangemen, I at once decline to accept puch a recommendation, coming at such a moment, from the hon. Member. It is quite enough, however, for the Committee to know that there is no precedent for this Vote, and I think it is impossible for the House of Commons to go on voting away the money of the taxpayers as they have been doing within the last three or four days. We have been told that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury is not responsible for this Vote; but, as a matter of fact, he is responsible for it. It is all very well for hon. Members who sit on that Bench to offer opinions now which are intended to put themselves in accord with those which they were accustomed to express when they sat below the Gangway. The Committee has nothing to do with that. The hon. Gentleman brings forward this Estimate with the sanction of the Treasury; but, at the same time, I am perfectly sure that my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government cannot for a moment sanction a Vote of this kind for which it is perfectly clear there is no precedent whatever. In no other instance except where the services have been rendered by the soldiers of Her Majesty have we given medals to troops engaged in any other transaction, with yards of ribbon besides.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. H. H. Fowler): I think I am entitled to explain that the Supplementary Estimates which the Committee are now discussing are not Supplementary Estimates which have been prepared by the present Government, nor have they been signed by myself, as Financial Secretary, but by my Predecessor who
    1252
    sits opposite. The present Government had no discretion in the matter, nor have they exercised any. When they came into Office they found that the money now asked for had been expended, and that the medals had been manufactured; and, consequently, they have not been in a position to exercise any discretion in regard to the purpose for which the grant is made.
    Mr. W. H. SMITH: I have only an imperfect knowledge of the present case, because I was not Secretary of State for the Colonies when the medals were granted, and, as hon. Members are aware, it is not the duty, nor is it, of course, in the power of every Member of a Government to become aware of all the circumstances and all the facts which may be brought under the notice of the Government. But I have, however, some recollection of the circumstances of this case. This is a medal to reward soldiers acting under the orders of a General Officer in the Queen's Service. I believe the custom is that when a medal is given to one portion of the force, it is given to the whole force. I am under that impression; but I wish to speak with caution upon the matter, because I do not desire to create any false impression. I believe the operations undertaken in the North-West of Canada were undertaken by the Government of Canada, with the full knowledge of the Colonial Department of this country, but without any desire on the part of the Colonial Office to interfere with the full responsibility of a Constitutional Government like that of Canada. The military operations in question were not conducted during the Administration of the late Government, but in that of its Predecessor. It was represented, I believe by the Government of Canada, that a very great public advantage would be derived from a recognition on the part of Her Majesty of the bravery and endurance which the soldiers displayed in the discharge of their duty in the Dominion of Canada. It was also represented that no such recognition could, be given by the Government of Canada itself, because it had no power to grant a Royal medal in recognition of those military operations. Considering all the circumstances of the case, having regard to the fact that the Colonial forces were forces of the Crown, although not paid by this country, and having regard also to the fact that this

    1253
    country had received much aid and comfort from our Colonial forces in an enter-prize which this country lately conducted on the Nile, the late Government deemed it advisable to accede to the request of the Canadian Government, and grant a medal to these men in recognition of the services they had rendered in an Expedition which terminated so successfully.
    Mr. INCE: I am quite willing, after the speech of the right lion. Gentleman who has just sat down, to accept the word of the right hon. Gentleman that he knows very little about this matter. But I am bound to say that when the right hon. Gentleman said that the Dominion of Canada could not grant these medals, he carefully guarded himself against saying that the Dominion of Canada cannot pay for them. That is the question which the Committee have to consider. I was also surprised to hear from my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury that neither he, or the Government of which he is a distinguished Member, have anything to do with the Estimates which are brought forward, and which he recommends the Committee to adopt. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman moved them, unless he was prepared to recommend them. I can quite understand that there might be a difficulty if the medal has already been ordered and the money spent. I understand, however, that the medals are of standard silver, and there is one suggestion I would throw out for the consideration of the Committee. I imagine they are of the value put down in the Estimate, and I anticipate that that value could be obtained if the Committee, in its wisdom, did not choose to pay for the medals. I am quite willing to pay for the 1,320 yards of ribbon, because the ribbon could not possibly be disposed of at its original value, and also the £5 charged for waste of metal. If the Treasury is in a difficulty how to get over the liability of this country for £1,200, I would suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy) should move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £1,155, which would allow the medals to be sold at their market value.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: As there may be some difficulty in regard to the payment for the ribbon, I am quite willing to adopt the suggestion of my hon. and learned
    1254
    Friend. I will, therefore, move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,155.
    Captain VERNEY: I rise for the purpose of seconding the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for the reduction of this Vote. As one of the many Members of this House who have the honour of wearing Her Majesty's medals, I feel that I ought not to vote against the Motion of the Secretary to the Treasury without giving a reason. I entirely endorse what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary for War (Mr. W. H. Smith), that no medal can be granted, and no medal has any value, unless it comes from Her Majesty. No Colonial Government can grant a medal that would have any value in the eyes of either a soldier or sailor. It is because it is presented by Her Majesty, and for no other reason, that a piece of silver has a priceless value in the eyes of the man who receives it. But those who receive it receive it on the recommendation of the Government of the day; and I am distinctly of opinion that the Government of the day wrongly advised Her Majesty when they recommended that those who had been engaged in the suppression of what practically amounted to a civil war, and who were fighting against their fellow-countrymen, should receive this reward. Such a reward as the granting of a medal should be reserved only for those who fight against the enemies of their country.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £45, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886, in aid of Colonial Local Revenue, and to defray the Salaries and Allowances of Governors, &c., and other Charges connected with the Colonies, including Expenses incurred under 'The Pacific Islanders Protection Act, 1875.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I think there are other considerations involved which have not been put by any other Member. This is certainly a very formidable grant—a Vote of £1,200—and I have no doubt that it merits the careful consideration which the Committee has given to it. But I would ask hon. Members to consider whether the Canadians might not, with much justice and truth, put a serious misconstruction on the rejection of the Vote by the Com-

    1255
    mittee to-night. If the Committee think that the late Government were wrong in granting the medals, they can censure them. But what is the position as it affects the Dominion? And what is the position in which we stand, not only with regard to Canada, but with regard to one of our Australian Colonies? We were carrying on military operations which sorely strained the military resources of this country. The Nile Expedition could hardly have been carried on with so much celerity if it had not been for the Canadian boatmen; and the Canadian Government afforded all possible facilities for giving the British Government the assistance of those boatmen. That was a favour shown to this country by the Canadian Government in a most honourable and dignified manner. I imagine that the fact must remain on their mind that they did render assistance to Her Majesty's Government in a time of need. But how is it proposed to reward them? They came to our assistance at a time when their services were really wanted and were really useful, and they did, in point of fact, render invaluable service in a matter in which we should hardly have got the work done without their aid. Soon after this invaluable service had been rendered to us, the Government of the Dominion was placed in a position of considerable difficulty by the outbreak of a rebellion, which was successfully put down by an Expedition of Volunteers organized and carried out by a remarkable development of the martial spirit in Canada. After the return of the Expedition the Government of the Dominion asked that a special mark of favour should be shown by the Crown to the Volunteers who took part in the Expedition. What would be thought in Canada if the House of Commons, after the Crown and the Government had come forward to grant a reward, declined to vote £1,200 now asked for for the medals for the soldiers? That is all I have to put before the Committee. The Committee may censure the late Government; but it would be most impolitic not to comply with the request of the Canadian Government, who have rendered us material assistance when the resources of this country W6re to some extent overtaxed. I cannot help making an appeal to the Prime Minister whether that is a position the Committee could occupy with
    1256
    dignity or advantage, and whether it might not produce serious misunderstanding in Canada if the Vote now asked for were, by any possibility, to be refused by the Committee? I trust the Committee will not be disposed to go to a division without a word from the Prime Minister indicating his opinion on the expediency of refusing the Vote.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE): I am very glad that explanation has been made, because it puts clearly before the Committee the position of the Government with regard to this Vote. The resignation of one Government and the appointment of another, when it occurs in the interval between the spending of a sum of money and the final sanction of the House to it, frequently leads to some difficulty, because it is one Government that comes to a decision to spend the money, and it is another whose formal and unquestionable duty it is to submit to the House the Estimate that has been prepared and signed. Nothing remains to them but to submit it to the House. A fair and candid statement has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for War (Mr. W. H. Smith), who has given the reasons which influenced the late Government in the decision at which they arrived. Well, Sir, the present Government were not parties to that decision. I own that I feel great difficulty in making myself a party to it, ex post facto, by stating that I thought a sound discretion had been exercised. I have not the slightest idea that any improper motive can be imputed to the late Government in coming to this decision. But when I come to consider the vote I should give, I approach the question less as a Minister than as a Member of Parliament; and, looking at it as a Member of Parliament, I am certainly unable to adopt the whole statement just made by the noble Lord. But what the noble Lord stated is entitled to the consideration of the Committee. He has asked whether, if we were to reject the Vote, the Act would not be liable to be misconstrued in Canada? I do not doubt that the rejection of the Vote is within the competency of the Committee; but it is impossible for me to deny that it would be open to misconstruction in Canada; and, on the whole, I am not willing to incur the risk of that misconstruction. I

    1257
    feel, with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), that the question of giving military decorations for military services in operations that were of the nature of civil war is a very nice question indeed, which admits of being argued against as well as for; and that reason, of itself, would have inclined me to leave the matter entirely in the hands of the Canadian Government. But I could not resist the force of the fact that what has been done has been done in perfect good faith, whether the judgment exercised has been sound or not. If the Committee were to intervene now and withhold its sanction, it is probable that such an act on the part of the Committee would be open to serious misconstruction in Canada; and it is by no means worth while incurring such a risk in a matter of this kind.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided—Ayes 66; Noes 209: Majority 143.—(Div. List, No. 10.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    CLASS VI.—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHAITABLE SERVICES.
    (6.) £3,000, Superannuation and Retired Allowances.
    SIR ROBERT PEEL: What has become of the Vote before this, for South Africa and St. Helena? Why is it that no notice has been taken of it?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. H. H. FOWLER): It will be taken on Monday instead of to-night, in order that the discussion upon it may not interfere with the Crofters' Bill.
    Mr. RYLANDS: Upon this Vote I wish to express my hope that the whole question with regard to pensions in the Public Service will receive strict attention at the hands of the Committee and Her Majesty's Government. The Committee will be aware that this sum of £3,000 is an addition to the total sum of £460,710 asked for in the original Estimate of 1885–6 for Superannuation and Retired Allowances in this Class; but, in addition to these figures, a very large sum is voted every year and charged upon the Consolidated Fund, amounting to several millions sterling; and I am quite certain that, unless some serious effort is made to check the con-
    1258
    tinual increase of the charge for pensions, there will be great public dissatisfaction. I may, in fact, say that there is very great public dissatisfaction already. The other evening, hon. Members will recollect, I appealed to my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. H. H. Fowler) on the Vote with regard to the new Office formed for the Secretary for Scotland. I suggested that it was extremely desirable that, in every case where it was possible, those gentlemen already on pension who are not past the age of efficient work should be drafted into the Public Service, with a view to effect a saving of pension. We are continually placing men on pension, with the view of re-organizing the Departments of the Public Service; but when these re-organizations in the Public Service have taken place, I have found that the economy which has resulted from it to the public is very difficult to see, although the cause of public economy has been invariably alleged as a reason for bringing forward the measure. Now, since I called attention to this subject, two nights ago, I have received letters in connection with it, and I know that there are at this present time many gentlemen who have been forced to accept pensions—men who are now in the prime of life, and who are anxious to got public employment, but have no chance of obtaining it. It has been suggested to me, and I have myself brought the subject under the notice of the Treasury, that it would be very desirable if a list of all those gentlemen who are placed on pension and who are still able to render public service should be kept; and that, if possible, such list should also indicate the names of those who will be willing to give their services to the State in fulfilment of public duty. It would be desirable also that all appointments, so far as possible, should be accompanied with this condition—that any gentleman entering the Public Service should place himself at the disposal of the Government, to this extent, at least, that if he is placed on pension he will be liable to be brought again into the Public Service for the discharge of such duties as, in the judgment of the Government, he may be able to perform. But now there is a continual difficulty with regard to the men put on pension, who decline to go back to the Public Service, because they

    1259
    were only appointed for particular duties. But, leaving these gentlemen out of the question, it seems to me that it is extremely desirable that some system should be adopted by means of which some saving of expenditure in pensions might be made—that is to say, by the employment of suitable persons who may be retired under peculiar circumstances, but who are still able to serve the public. I am bound to say, however, that I believe the servants of the Crown are very much indisposed to facilitate any arrangement which would again bring into the Service gentlemen who may be retired on pension, because it is quite clear that when there is a vacancy in any Office there is a chance of promotion, which would be done away with, to a greater or less extent, if some outsider were admitted. The servants of the Crown, to a large extent, seem to think that the Public Service exists for their benefit, and they are always to be found supporting measures which tend to the increase of public charges; but I hope we are approaching the time when the public, through their Representatives in this House, will show these gentlemen that they are appointed by the public and exist for the Public Service, and that unless some change is brought about in this matter, there will not alone be great dissatisfaction, but, perhaps, an end of their interest altogether. If this enormous Pension List goes on increasing as it has done for many years past, looking at its enormous total, looking at the fact that Democracy is a greater power in this House than it was, and that it will probably be greater hereafter, I verily believe that there will be such stern measures taken by the public that individual interests may not be regarded in quite so favourable a manner as some gentlemen may desire. I think, therefore, in the interest of the Crown, that the attention of the Government and the assistance of the Government should be directed at once to this question, and I hope we shall be informed how far some impression can be made upon the Pension List with the view of reducing this very serious charge. The CHAIRMAN: I have not interrupted the hon. Member for Burnley in the course his remarks have taken in consequence of what I believe to be a very lax practice. I think the clear rule is that the discussion on a Supplemen-
    1260
    tary Vote should be confined to the specific items contained therein, and that the general principle should not be entered upon except for the purpose of illustration.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I concur, Mr. Courtney, with your view that no general principle should be discussed on a Supplementary Estimate, and shall, of course, act upon it in dealing with the Vote before the Committee. I find, in the details of the Vote under A for Superannuation Allowances, a specific charge for £1,000 on account of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, in addition to the original Estimate. I wish to know what that charge is for—and I ask if there has been any re-arrangement in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, owing to which some person in the prime of life has been retired; or has there been an unexpected breakdown of some important member of the High Court of Justice for whom it is necessary to provide a pension?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. H. H. FOWLER): Mr. Courtney, after the remarks you have just made I shall not transgress your ruling by entering upon the general subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands); but, perhaps, I may be allowed to say that I entirely sympathize with him, and will exercise any power I may possess to carry out the object in view. With regard to the Question asked by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), I have given particular attention to the Estimates for this matter. My hon. Friend will understand that they are not in the Estimates of the year, but that they consist of unexpected claims which have come before Parliament in a Supplementary Estimate. There has been no re-organization of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice. I may say that two of the oldest officers of the Court of Chancery have retired this year, which explains the charge of £1,000 for superannuation allowances. The two gentlemen referred to, I believe, have been known to me in the Public Service for more years than I care to remember. As I said, they have now retired after a life-long service under the ordinary Rules, and they are, therefore, entitled to pensions.
    (7.) £612, Pauper Lunatics, Scotland.

    Class VII.—MISCELLANEOUS.
    (8.) £2,700, Registration of Voters, England.
    SIR JOHN GORST: Mr. Courtney, I wish to ask a Question with regard to this Vote, and, in doing so, I shall proceed strictly in accordance with your ruling. I will remind the Committee that last year the sum of £40,000 was granted by Parliament in aid of the expenses of registration in counties. Of that sum £20,000 was appropriated to the extra remuneration of Clerks of the Peace and other county expenses, and the remaining £20,000 was for the extra remuneration of overseers. I am informed that the Returns were made by the counties to the Local Government Board, and that they were to receive this sum from the Imperial Government before Christmas last; but, notwithstanding that, I am informed that no sums have been received by the counties with respect to this grant. I ask the reason for this—whether it was owing to this Supplementary Vote of £2,700 being required that the delay has taken place; whether the sum asked for is for the purposes I have described; and whether the Government can name any period of time within which the counties were entitled to the payment of the expenses under the Vote of last year, and when payment will be made?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS): In answer to the inquiry of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, I may say that I anticipate that the payment in respect of the oxpenses of Clerks of the Peace and overseers, in connection with the registration of voters, will be made immediately. The accounts are made up, and I see no reason why the money should not be paid to the counties almost at once.
    MR. CONYBEARE: A few days ago I took the opportunity of addressing a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister on the subject of the amendment of the law in relation to the registration of voters. I regretted that no hope was held out by the right hon. Gentleman at the time of the matter being taken up by Her Majesty's Government during this year; and, although there are two private Members' Bills upon the subject, I fear it is very
    1262
    doubtful whether in the course of the Session they will be able to get passed any amendment of the Law of Registration. The principal reason assigned for not taking up this question in a Government measure this year was that Parliament had met under unusual circumstances, and that it would be better to wait until we are near the decease of Parliament than to attempt legislation on the subject while Parliament is young. But it seems to me not impossible that this Parliament may come to an end before the present year expires; and it is on that account that I venture to renew my protest against the law as it exists for the registration of voters, and to express the hope that in the interest of the people of the country the Government will deal with the question. Every election that takes place shows how unfair to the majority of the working classes is the action of the present law. With the permission of the Committee I will state what occurred with regard to my own election. I acted not only as my own election agent, but looked after the business relating to the list in the Revision Court as well. I found in the case of one particular parish the names of certain voters, working men, which were struck off the list from no fault of their own, but simply because of the default or negligence of the overseers with regard to the initials representing their Christian names, and it was with great difficulty that I persuaded the Revising Barrister in their case not to strike off the names of the individuals. It seems to me a grievance of which the working classes have to complain, that when they see their names on the Registers they should afterwards be deprived of their right to vote, as I have said, through no default on their part, but through the negligence or ignorance of those with whom the duty rests of making out the lists. I do not complain specially of the lists of last year, because it is a matter of notoriety that owing to the great amount of work thrown upon the authorities in connection with the Reform Act, it was impossible to avoid a good many mistakes; nor do I want to charge the overseers with any mala fides; but I say that when this Vote is asked to supplement the Vote originally granted for the registration of voters, it is desirable to see that the work is properly done. Then, in

    1263
    another case which came under my notice, the overseers did not comply with the law; and I make a very strong representation on this ground. I think it is most desirable that the overseers should discharge their duty in all respects according to law. The law requires that overseers should publish the lists of voters in a particular manner—namely, by affixing them to the outside wall or door of every church or chapel in each parish. This was not done on the occasion referred to; and although I complained to the Revising Barrister, he refused to entertain my complaint, and made some excuse. I draw attention to this because, where lists are hung up inside churches or chapels, it is almost impossible for those concerned to ascertain whether they are on the list or not. For the reasons I have given I think these are matters which Her Majesty's Government ought to take notice of, with a view to remedy the evil complained of as soon as possible. There are other matters in connection with the Registration Law about which I shall have to speak at another time, but which are not germane to this particular Vote. As we are here asked to vote large sums of money for the purpose of carrying out the work of the Registration Act, I think it is only right to call attention to the facts I have described. In conclusion, I think that the subject ought to be dealt with in the time at the disposal of the present Government, and at the earliest opportunity, because I certainly feel with regard to political matters of the present day that it is impossible to say whether or not we shall have another General Election before the end of the year.
    SIR BERNHARD SAMUELSON: I also have to complain of the way in which the overseers, in my own experience, performed their duties of registration. In the division which I represent (Banbury) there were whole parishes in which the voters were incorrectly described; and hon. Members can imagine the expense this would throw upon the candidates, while the voters themselves might be deprived of the privilege to which they were entitled. I remember the difficulty we had in rectifying these blunders. In some cases it was impossible to do so, the Revising Barristers saying they had no power to make the necessary rectifications. I hope the
    1264
    Government will not wait till they can bring in a Bill to deal with the whole subject, but that they will introduce a short Bill in which two things ought to be provided for—one is, that Revising Barristers may have power, where the name of a person duly qualified to vote appears on the Register, to insert the proper qualification; the other is, that if negligence on the part of the overseer is proved, power should be given to the Revising Barrister to mulct the overseer in costs. If these provisions were made in a Bill of a few lines, I think we might rest contented for the present; and I shall be glad to hear from the Treasury Bench whether any steps will be taken in the direction indicated. Although, perhaps, it is not so germane to the Vote before us as the question of Registration, I would ask my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Jesse Collings), if he can state the total number of two-pences paid to the overseers and Clerks of the Peace, which would indicate the total number of voters on the Register?
    MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: I can support the statements of hon. Gentlemen who have just spoken on the subject of registration. From my own knowledge, I am in a position to state that thousands of the poorer class of voters lost their qualification at the last Election by the blundering of the overseers. I am of opinion that no part of our system is worse performed than the part performed by the overseers. I believe, moreover, that in many cases they have acted in the most partizan spirit, a circumstance which in itself ought to bring their conduct under severe censure. I entirely concur with the wish of the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxfordshire(Sir Bernhard Samuel-son) that there were some means by which a severe penalty could be inflicted in the case of overseers who have acted improperly.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I am glad to hear the opinions expressed by hon. Members on the other side of the House on this question of the registration of voters. There is, in my opinion, nothing more absolutely necessary for the free choice of Members of this House than the purification of the present method of placing the names of voters on the lists. The Prime Minister himself, when speaking at Mid Lothian, placed this at

    1265
    the very core of the subject. I am convinced that, unless some fine or mulct is placed on overseers, it is absolutely hopeless to expect a correct and impartial discharge of their duties; and, with regard to Ireland, I shall be pxepared to show not only that proper persons were not in the lists, but that improper persons, who had no political existence at all, were placed on the roll of voters. There is no doubt that if a Select Committee were granted to inquire into this matter, it would be shown that there were scores of cases of the grossest misconduct on the part of overseers; and now that a Liberal Government is in Office, I trust that some steps will be taken to procure a purification of the lists. It is not enough that a grant should be made in aid of the cost of registration; the matter should be taken out of the hands of local partizans; and I trust that the Government will see the enormous importance, as affecting every Member of the House, of performing the duty. In Ireland we are simply disgusted with the way in which this business is carried on; and I beg to assure hon. Members opposite that any steps which they may take to insure purification of the lists will have our cordial support.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. H. H. FOWLER): I do not regret the discussion which has taken place on this "Vote, although it has occupied a considerable amount of time. I can assure hon. Members on this side of the House, and the hon. and learned Member for Derry (Mr. T. M. Healy), that, in my opinion, this question of registration has become a crying evil, and that, as hon. Members have agreed, it is desirable that the whole Law of Registration, and, what is more important, its administration, should be reformed. Hon. Members will remember that the question was carefully considered when we were engaged with the Reform Bill; but that it was absolutely impossible to deal with it then, and we allowed the existing machinery to stand as it was in view of the dissolution of Parliament and the General Election. But I think that the present Government is pledged to an alteration of the law, and I have no doubt that the suggestions made to-night, and those that may be made hereafter, will be taken into their consideration. I believe
    1266
    that a Select Committee has sat to consider the question of reforming the Registration Laws. I think that probably the best way to deal with the matter will be to get rid of the overseers altogether; but, of course, I cannot pledge myself or the Government to any specific mode of procedure, although I can assure hon. Gentlemen that it is a matter with which, when they have the opportunity, the Government intends to deal.
    Mr. MACFARLANE: This is a question which relates not to England and Wales only, but to the whole Kingdom. I wish, therefore, to make a few remarks upon the question with regard to Scotland.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will not be in Order in referring to Scotland, the Vote before the Committee having reference only to England and Wales.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS): In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Banbury) (Sir Bernhard Samuelson), I have to state that there was an allowance of 4d. for each name placed upon the list—that is to say, 2d. for each name to the overseers and 2d. to the Clerks of the Peace. The number of voters in England and Wales was 2,546,640, which, at 44. per head, gives the sum of £42,444. The increase in the number of county voters for England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland was 1,729,300; and if we add to this the increase for the extension of the borough and service franchise, taking into account the increase of population from 1881 to the time when the Act came into force, it is assumed that it will give a total increase of 2,000,000 of voters.
    Vote agreed to.
    (9.) £2,000, Registration of Voters. Ireland.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: After the remarks which fell from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. II. H. Fowler), I do not think it necessary to enter upon a long discussion of this Vote. I shall, therefore, say but a very few words upon it. I think it absolutely necessary that there should be some protection to voters in reference to this matter of registration. In Ireland, the Sheriff or the Clerk of the

    1267
    Peace gives out the printing of the voters' lists to the Conservative newspaper, and the Conservative newspaper, when once the lists are signed by the Revising Barrister, as we know, may put in any names it pleases. We do charge that after the voters' lists in Ulster had passed from the hands of the Revising Barrister, and were signed by him and handed over to be printed, the lists were stuffed, and that dozens and scores of persons appeared who were never on it at all, while persons who were struck off the lists appeared afterwards as genuine voters. The serious effect of this will be that there will exist in the public mind a sense of uneasiness and distrust; and even supposing that our charges are not substantial, there will still remain the belief that, under the present system, such things are possible. I say it is essential that we should have a fair Court, fair law, and honest people to carry it out. The whole machinery should be above suspicion, and then if a mistake were made everyone would believe it was a mistake; whereas, in the present circumstances, if a mistake is made the assumption is to the contrary; and there is in the North of Ireland a feeling that not only the boundaries, but the voters' lists, have been jerrymandered.
    MR. MACARTNEY: I should not trouble the Committee were it not that the hon. and learned Member for Derry (Mr. T. M. Healy) has, as usual, taken the course of making very serious charges against Members from the North of Ireland. He makes the assertion, although he did not name any instance, that the printing of the lists of voters was given only to the Conservative newspapers. There are not many newspapers in the North of Ireland representing the opinions of hon. Members below the Gangway; but I quite admit that, where there are newspapers representing those opinions, they are entitled to a share of the printing. But the hon. and learned Member has also stated that there exists a general and strong impression amongst the public in the North of Ireland that the registration of voters there has been tampered with. Now, I totally dissent from that view. There was, of course, very heavy work during the last registration, and I believe that all the officials connected with it discharged their duties with unusual labour and efficiency. A
    1268
    large amount of work was done in one Revising Court; and I believe, with regard to the lists, that a very great deal of trouble was given to the Revising Barrister and the officers connected with the registration by the fraudulent claims made by the Nationalist Party. One person, a blacksmith in a small village, was claimed for four times in the list, and 26 names were struck out without any attempt of the National Party to defend them. I certainly protest before the Committee against the continual repetition of these grave charges, which are made, without any specific case being given, against officials in the North of Ireland or in Ireland generally.
    MR. DILLON: The hon. Member for Antrim (Mr. Macartney) has conveyed the impression that the state of things in the North of Ireland with regard to the registration of voters as described by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derry does not exist. But the hon. Member forgets that his knowledge is confined to that Party who have power to appoint the officials in question, which, allow mo to remind the Committee, is exercised with a degree of bigotry and exclusiveness which cannot be surpassed in any country in the world. Of course, amongst his Friends no such things as we allege are possible, and, of course, when an error is made it cannot be committed in favour of them, but against them. I think, with the exception of one Province, the officials are Bitter partizans and agents of the Conservative Party. We object that these men are notorious partizans, and we say that they should have no control over these lists. The hon. Member says that no such impression exists in the North of Ireland as that the lists have been tampered with. I venture to suggest that the contrary is the case. I myself fought a close contest, and numbers of respectable people came to me afterwards and absolutely swore that such action had gone on——
    Mr. MACARTNEY: I said "general impression."
    Mr. DILLON: It is, of course, very natural that the hon. Member (Mr. Macartney) and his Friends are satisfied with the present state of things, and that we are not. That is the whole point of the matter. We contend that whenever an error is committed it is in-

    1269
    variably in favour of the hon. Gentleman's Party; and we are prepared to bring evidence in support of our case before a Committee of this House. I know men who are prepared to swear as to the irregularities which have occurred as to minors having been put on the Register, &c. Now, these are the facts which destroy public confidence in the list. An hon. Member asked me the other day how a minor can vote in a matter of this kind; but I pointed out to him that the Presiding Officer had no power whatever of dealing with the matter so long as the name appeared on the Register. I have only to say, in conclusion, because the case has been very well put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derry (Mr. T. M. Healy), that I desire to earnestly press upon the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. H. H. Fowler) that the Government ought not to postpone action in this matter to prevent a recurrence of such malpractices. In a very short time there may be another General Election; and, therefore, at the very next registration the lists of voters ought to be purified.
    MR. CLANCY: The hon. Member for Antrim (Mr. Macartney) has accounted for the partizanship shown in the distribution of the printing, by stating that Nationalist newspapers in Ulster are few in number. I do not know if that is so; but all I can say is, that the practice of giving the printing of the lists to the Tory newspapers is quite general throughout Ireland. No matter which Province it is, the practice is that wherever the responsible officer is a Conservative, the Tories get the printing of the lists. The hon. Member has charged that the Nationalist Party filled the voters' lists with double claims. The hon. Member simply shows his ignorance by making such a complaint. The practice is a necessary one and is indulged in by both parties when they know their business. I can state a fact for the information of hon. Members in regard to the way in which the lists are made up in Ireland. In the Rathmines Division of the county of Dublin, out of 500 claims put in by the friends of the hon. Member for Antrim (Mr. Macartney) not 50 were sustained. In some cases, triple and even quadruple cases were made in respect of the same person. With reference to another observation which fell
    1270
    from the hon. Member, I should like to say this—that my experience of the county of Dublin registration work teaches me that as gross irregularities are to be found there, within sight of Dublin Castle, as could be found in the furthest corner of Connaught. The Committee will remember that last year Dublin County was divided into two divisions specially to secure a seat for a Tory in a constituency which, taken as a whole, was overwhelmingly Nationalist. This attempt to safeguard the Empire was supplemented by the action of those who actually drew the dividing line, for it was curious to notice that voters who were believed to be Nationalist were in all doubtful cases placed on the lists for North Dublin, which was strongly Nationalist, while the contrary rule was always adopted in the case of supposed Conservatives. I know of one case in which the owner of a villa residence, who is a Nationalist, and the gate-lodge keeper, who is also a Nationalist, were put in North Dublin; while the occupier of the villa, who is a Tory, was put in South Dublin. Those who are so anxious to maintain the integrity of the Empire were guilty of the most disgraceful partisanship in making up these lists; and if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Antrim will move for an inquiry into these matters, I will undertake to give him a score of instances even more scandalous than those I have mentioned.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I think, Sir, that there can be little doubt, after what my hon. Friend has said, that whatever may be the other qualities of the hon. Member for Antrim (Mr. Macartney) he must know very little indeed of the subject of the registration of voters. He complains that the Nationalists in the constituencies with which he is acquainted claimed three times. Well, the hon. Member in this matter has found a mare's nest. It is absolutely necessary, in order to properly work the business of registration, that these duplicate claims should be made, and they are not exclusively confined to any one political Party. The fact is, that the law regulating the registration of voters is so complex and so confused that it was practically impossible for the person working it to know under what particular qualification he should make a claim. In some cases it is quite im-

    1271
    possible to know whether the claim should be made as a rated occupier, or an owner, or as a lodger; and therefore it is necessary to lodge all the claims, so that on one of them at least the claimant shall succeed. The last revision was the first time that special Acts of Parliament were applied in the counties of Ireland; and, having regard to that fact, it was quite important for everybody to be prepared for the way in which those Acts, as Revision Law, would be decided by the Courts. In one instance no less than 500 votes were lost in consequence of a particular decision. There is one other matter to which I should like to call the attention of the Committee—I mean the duplication of names, not on the voters' list, but on the Register itself. A considerable discussion has been raised as to the large number of abstentions from the poll in Ireland. Well, I can say that it was due, to a great extent, to the duplication of names on the Register. My attention was called to one case in which the name of one individual occurred on the Register no less than 60 times, and no less than five times on one page, the names being in close proximity to each other. I am aware that this was the case in a large number of constituencies in which no proper revision took place, in consequence of one Party being in such overwhelming force that there was no opposition made before the Revising Barrister. I certainly join in the appeal of the lion, and learned Member for South Derry (Mr. T. M. Healy) that the Government should take this matter into their consideration, and, when the proper time comes, they will, no doubt, receive suggestions from all parts of the House as to the way in which it should be dealt with. I do not mean to challenge this Vote; but I respectfully assert that there are two points on which the law ought to be amended.
    Vote agreed to.

    REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
    (10.) £12,000, Inland Revenue.
    MR. JACKSON: I do not rise to oppose this Vote, because the amount of it is already due to those who act as collectors and so on; but I desire to call the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. H. H. Fowler) to what I think is the cause of a very large increase in this Vote, and the possibility of effecting a very
    1272
    considerable economy. It will be in the recollection of the Committee that these Supplementary Estimates arise from the poundage having been increased, not by reason of any additional labour having been thrown upon the collectors, but by the increase of the Income Tax from 6d. to 8d. in the pound; and it will be seen that although the Supplementary Estimate asked for is only £12,000, the actual additional poundage is not less than £26,000. Sometime ago the question was raised as to whether an alteration should be attempted in the system, and whether the whole collection of the tax should be placed in the hands of the Inland Revenue. That was rejected by the House. I am not at present going to discuss whether that decision of the House was a wise one or not. It was the decision at which the House arrived, and it does not affect the point which I desire to bring before the Committee. It is at present collected partly by the Inland Revenue and partly by local collectors; and although the collection by the Inland Revenue shows a tendency to increase, the payment, as I say, varies not with the amount of the paper which is necessary for the collection of the tax, but it varies by reason of the increase or decrease—the rate of the tax itself. I merely call the attention of th9 Committee to the figures in order to show that it is desirable that some alteration should be made in the system. The poundage was settled by the House in 1880, and will be found in the Taxes Amendment Act (1st Schedule), 1880. In 1879–80—the Schedule which was then F is now—the actual amount of poundage paid was £178,948; in 1880–1 it was £165,709; in 1881–2 it was £166,865; while in 1882–3 it was £214,570. the increase on that year over the previous year being £47,705, and was, I believe, mainly due to the increase in the tax from 5d. to 6½d. in the pound. The Expenditure for the year 1884–5 I have not, nor for the year 1885–6; but the Estimate for 1885–6 was £238,750, to which an additional £12,000 is now added, making together £250,750. The net result, therefore, is tbis—that the estimated Expenditure for the current year is £77,900 more than the Estimate for the preceding year. I ought to say, however, that of that sum about £34,000 of the increase is owing to the charge for the triennial valuation

    1273
    of property outside the Metropolitan area. It is, however, £80,000 more than the sum paid in 1880, and it is £70,000 more than the amount of 1884; and I believe that the increase in the present year is due, in a great measure, to the increase of the tax from 6d. to 8d. I think it seems unlikely that the Income Tax, for some time to come, will be much reduced; and that, therefore, the time has arrived when the amount of poundage, as settled in 1880, might, with very great propriety, be revised, and a very large and material economy effected.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. H. H. FOWLER): This is a question which is of very great importance; and the Committee is very much indebted to the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Jackson) for having brought it before them. In 1883 my right lion. Friend the present Home Secretary (Mr. Childers) brought the question before the House, and showed how £80,000 a-year could be saved if the Income Tax was collected by the officers of the Inland Revenue, who are paid by salaries and not by poundage; but the Government was beaten, and we have gone on paying £30,000 a-year more than we ought to have done. The House preferred the interest of the tax collectors to that of the taxpayers. The statutory poundage is always 1½d. in the pound, whatever the rate may be, and it is payable at the time of collection. But, in addition to that, every year very large allowances are made, called extra poundage, which varies at the same ratio as the Income Tax itself—the extra poundage being reduced as the rate of the tax rises. For instance, the extra poundage for next year will be very largely reduced. For my own part, I believe that the Income Tax ought to be collected by the officers of the Inland Revenue, who are paid by salary; and I shall be only too glad if hon. Members on the other side of the House will cooperate with me, and give a reasonable chance of altering the law in this direction.
    Vote agreed to.
    (11.) £45,000, Post Office.
    MR. BARRY: In connection with this Vote I wish to call attention to the low rate of wages paid to rural postmen in Ireland. Strong representations have been made to me in regard to this
    1274
    matter; and a great many cases of extreme hardship have reached me. The rate of wages to rural postmen in England and Scotland is very low indeed; but in Ireland it does not amount to one-half of what it is in England and Scotland. Since the introduction of the Parcel Post, moreover, the duties and the hardships of their position have greatly increased. But there is another point which I am also desirous of bringing forward. Irish people in England and Scotland are in the habit of sending over postal notes to their friends in the rural districts of Ireland; and it is not fair to allow men who are paid at starvation rates to be placed in such positions of temptation. In the last Parliament I drew attention to this question, and received assurances that something would be done to improve this state of things; but up to the present nothing has been done in the matter. I would urge on the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, who has charge of the Post Office Business in this House, that he should give this matter his attention, and see if something cannot be done to improve the position of this large body of public servants.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I think it my duty to add one word on behalf of the rural postmen of Cornwall, after what the hon. Gentleman opposite has said. I had intended to raise this question on this Vote; but I am glad it has struck others, as well as myself, as being important; and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has referred to it. I wish, in addition to what the hon. Gentleman has said, to call attention to this important consideration, that rural postmen are almost the only class of public servants who have to do Sunday work, and who are paid at so low a rate as they habitually, and as a recognized fact, are paid. The Government, I think, should not fail to give the subject their best consideration. The hon. Member has said it rather strains the honesty of men in the humble position which many of these postmen occupy, to compel them to take charge of valuable securities in the shape of Post Office orders and so forth, without giving them a greater wage than they at present receive. I am happy to be able to bear testimony to the excessive honesty of rural postmen. I think it does great

    1275
    credit to them that, under present circumstances, they accomplish their duty with such efficiency—with that efficiency which is almost invariably their characteristic. And that is all the move reason why we should urge this point, and why we should press on the Government that the rural postmen should have more consideration at the hands of the Department. They should have higher wages, not only in consideration of the larger duties they have to perform in connection with the Parcel Post, but in consideration of the large amount of Sunday work they have to do. I do not want to argue against a postal delivery on Sunday, although I am sure a great many people think it would be well if there were no Sunday delivery at all; but I do think this Sunday work should be borne in mind when we are considering the general question of the rate of wages paid to the rural postmen out of these Votes. I speak with some experience on this subject, because, just as in the case of Ireland, so in the case of my Cornish constituency, large sums of money are constantly being received through the Post Office by Cornishmen and their families—money transmitted to them by relatives and others in foreign countries. I would mention, further, a particular case which has come before my notice, and which I have had to bring to the attention of the Post Office in London. It appears that persons are allowed to continue acting as postmasters and postmistresses up to an age which completely disqualifies them for the proper performance of the duties which are incumbent upon them. The instance I refer to is the postmistress at Tuckingmill, a place close to Camborne, which is the principal town in the district I have the honour to represent—the town which gives its name to the Division. It is felt by the inhabitants of Tuckingmill, which is a large village, almost deserving the name of a town, that they should have extra advantages and conveniences in the way of a Money Order Office and a Telegraph Office established in the place. Well, one of the reasons given me by the Post Office Authorities for not carrying out the wishes of the population of that neighbourhood is, that the present postmistress is 85 years of age, and is quite incompetent to perform new duties, and that it would not be right to turn
    1276
    her away, and appoint some younger person in her place. I do not want to turn her out; but I would ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, when a person has reached the age of 85 in the Postal Service, it is not time to consider whether he or she should not have a retiring pension, or, at least, an assistant, to help to do the work? At any rate, I feel it my duty to protest against the convenience of a large manufacturing district being overlooked and set at nought, in the interest of one individual, through economical considerations. The appointment of an assistant, or the giving of a pension to a person 85 years old, would be a mere bagatelle.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. H. H. FOWLER): In regard to the case the hon. Member who has just sat down has referred to, if he makes a representation to the proper Authorities, it will, no doubt, receive attention, and an answer will be given to him. For myself, I am neither conversant with the facts of the case nor the explanations.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I have brought the case before the Post Office Authorities, and have been commenting on the answer I received.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. H. H. FOWLER): With regard to the reference made by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Barry) to the pay of rural postmen, a Question was addressed to me upon it the other day, and I returned an answer at the time. Any further representations that may be made will be duly considered, and any further Questions that may be asked I will reply to. In dealing with this matter, I wish to speak to English and Scotch as well as Irish Members. I would point out to them that there is one principle Mr. Fawcett used to enunciate on the Post Office Votes—namely, that applications for an increase of cost in the working of the Post Office are really applications for an increase to the taxation of the country; and while, on the one hand, no one is more opposed than I am to any attempt on the part of the Government to undersell the public labour market, on the other hand, I am of opinion that we are not entitled with public money to oversell the labour market. It would be most unfair to take advantage of the position of the Government to buy labour at a

    1277
    less price than the persons employed would receive elsewhere for the same service. But, at the same time, we are not entitled, as trustees of public money, from motives of generosity or liberality, to pay higher prices for an article than private purchasers will give. I do not dispute that there may be a great deal in what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman on this side of the House (Mr. Conybeare), and that it may deserve investigation, and ought to receive it. We may be underpaying the postmen and giving them less than what is right; but may I, without presumption, ask those hon. Members on this side, fresh from the hustings, who have pledged themselves to economy in the Public Service—to which pledge I am sure they will wish to adhere—to remember that all these applications for grants for increased wages, annuities, and so on, out of the public funds, moans increased national expenditure, and increased expenditure means increased taxation. With reference to this "Vote, I congratulate the Committee on the fact that, although this is a Supplementary Estimate, we are in a position to ask for it, because this £45,000 represents a large increase—almost unexpected—in the Post Office Business during the year. The Post Office Re-venue is now decidedly improving, and the growth is greater than was expected by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he looked at the finances in the course of the summer. In asking for this Vote, I am net asking for it to make up for decrease of Post Office Revenue; I am asking for it to pay for services that have been rendered, and in respect of which the State will receive a proper return. If hon. Gentlemen will favour me with the details of their complaints, I will take care that a proper reply is furnished them.
    MR. BOYD-KINNEAR: I wish to add my voice, on behalf of the rural postmen of Scotland, to the claims which have been made on behalf of similar Post Office servants in Ireland and England. In regard to any increase in wages that may be granted, I think the postmen of the country districts of Scotland have fully an equal claim to those of England and Ireland, because they have to do their work under greater difficulties and disadvantages. The
    1278
    climate in these Northern parts is scarcely so good as in other portions of j the United Kingdom, and the country is a good deal more difficult to travel over. These country postmen have a good deal of work to do, and have to do it in all weathers, and that, I think, is a point which the Committee should not fail to consider. With regard to the remarks which have fallen from the Secretary to the Treasury as to the duty incumbent on the Government and the House of not paying more than the market rate of wages, I would venture to suggest that there should be some qualification to that. We are asking from postmen special service, not that of ordinary labour, though, no doubt, it is as hard. It is service as trying to the constitution as that of the ordinary labourer; but, in addition, it is service performed under circumstances of considerable temptation, and, therefore, I think we are bound to recognize that they deserve higher remuneration than that at which the cheapest labour can be hired in country districts. I would say, further, that it is not right on the part of this great and wealthy country to cut down the wages paid for its manual services—its lower class of labour—to the minimum amount for which they can be obtained. An hon. Gentleman recently gave Notice of a Motion which I very much regret was allowed to fall through—a Motion for a Committee to inquire whether the services of the country could not be benefited by an increase in the payments made to nearly all classes of public servants, the money to effect the increase to be obtained not by an increase in the taxation of the whole country, but by diminishing the salaries paid to the higher officials in the Public Service. I regret that ho did not insist on that Motion, but yielded to an illusory suggestion that the question should be merged in one for appointing a Committee to deal with the Estimates for the service of each year. I only allude to it now in order to say that it seems to me incumbent on the Government and this House to increase the salaries of the servants it employs in lower capacities, and to exercise principles of strict economy and justice in dealing with the salaries paid to the higher servants in the Public Offices.
    Mr. DEASY: I desire to say a few words in support of the arguments of

    1279
    the hon. Gentleman who spoke from this side of the House (Mr. Barry). I do not think the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury dealt with the case presented by my hon. Friend. I know it is usual for Members of the Government, under circumstances of this character, to say that particular instances of hardship should be furnished. It would be absolutely impossible for any hon. Gentleman to be able to ascertain with any degree of accuracy the many cases in which the postmen in rural districts are badly paid and the many instances in which their position deserves attention. My opinion is that the Government ought to deal with the matter in a broad and public-spirited manner as far as Ireland is concerned. In rural districts in Ireland, where the Post Offices are wide apart, it is no unusual thing for a man to have to walk 12 or 13 miles from one place to another and back again in a day, and that for the miserable stipend of 8s. or 10 s. a-week. As to what the hon. Gentleman has said with regard to the pledges of economy given by hon. Members at the hustings, I would point out that cases of this kind could not have been included in those declarations, for the question here is simply one of fair play. Economy is all very well in its way; but it is not right to treat these unfortunate men in the manner in which they have been treated. There are cases where the roads are particularly bad, where the postmen have to travel long distances through districts where the weather is inclement for at least half the year. I put it to any hon. Member, is it right to require these men to walk many miles every day over mountain roads for, perhaps, 10 s. a-week, when English and Scotch postmen are paid more for travelling much smaller distances?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. H. H. FOWLER): I stated the other night, in reply to a Question put to me by an Irish Member, that the wages of rural postmen in Ireland are 16 s. a-week.
    Mr. DEASY: In England it is 25 s.
    Hon. Members: No, no!
    Mr. DEASY: The maximum in Ireland, I take it, is 16s.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. H. H. FOWLER): Not the maximum.
    MR. DEASY: Well, it is 16 s., whilst in England it is 25 s. At any rate, there can be no doubt about the circumstances to which my hon. Friend (Mr. Barry) has referred. I could, if I had time to do so, give numerous instances where rural postmen get considerably less than 16 s. per week, and to earn it have to walk enormous distances every day over particularly bad roads. I have only one suggestion to make with regard to the Parcel Post. There can be no question that a great deal of extra labour has been thrown upon these men by the introduction of this system by the Post Office. Seeing that the custom of sending large quantities of goods by Parcel Post is growing, I would suggest that in many of the country districts, where large distances have to be gone over by these postmen, the Government should entertain the idea of employing horses and cars for travelling purposes. There is no reason why men should be required to walk 24 miles a-day, when you can keep a car for about 22 s. a-week. It seems to me only reasonable that the Post Office Authorities should consider this question. Horses should be used instead of the present mode of conveying the Parcel Post and the ordinary letters. I should also like to ask the Government how it is that in Ireland individuals are allowed to waylay postmen and take letters from them in the road, and why, when these individuals have been brought before the magistrates, the cases have been withdrawn against them? In the district in which I live a case of that kind has happened. A man, who is an official of the Grand Jury, a land agent, and I know not how many other things, waylaid a postman, forcibly opened the post-bag, and abstracted whatever letters he wanted. The Solicitor to the Post Office was sent down from Dublin to prosecute this person; but, strangely enough, when the case came before the magistrates the prosecution withdrew the charge. So that, instead of having to undergo an imprisonment of two years, as a member of the National League would have had to do for a similar offence, the guilty person, who belonged to the Loyal and Patriotic Brotherhood, is walking about the county of Cork at this moment just as free as he was before he committed the outrage. I hope that under the present Government the

    1281
    law will be meted out fairly and with an even hand, and that members of the Orange Society will not escape scot free in this way when members of the National League Association, for similar conduct, would be punished with the utmost rigour of the law. I shall put a Question in reference to this matter in the course of a few days; and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will give it his best attention.
    Sir JOSEPH M'KENNA: I will give the hon. Member the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. H. H. Fowler) an instance of the low rate at which some of the Irish rural postmen are paid. There is a postman in my own neighbourhood who travels 70 miles a-week, crossing an arm of the sea twice, and receives for it the magnificent salary of 12s. per week. He is breaking down in health, and I promised some friends of his that I would take the earliest opportunity of bringing his case forward. I believe that is not the worst example of what occurs by any means. Scotch Members are always very keen to have a full share of any public expenditure. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Boyd-Kinnear) has not let this opportunity for pressing the claims of Scotland to escape; but I would ask him to apply the sharpest edge of his intelligence to this proposition. The entire area of Scotland served by the Post Office is less than the entire area of Ireland, and yet the outlay in Ireland is only £127,857, whereas in Scotland it is £202,000—a proportion of 12 to 20. Will the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. H. H. Fowler) apply his mind to this matter? I do not say the Scotch postal servants receive too much money; but I wish those of Ireland to get paid on the scale that prevails in Scotland and England. On the whole, the Scotch service is as well paid as the English; but I know the Irish service is worse paid. With regard to the competition for employment under the Post Office and the low rate of wages paid, the Secretary to the Treasury has said that the Government has no right to obtain the services of these men at too low a rate, compared with the ordinary rates in the labour-market, nor at too high a rate. But it must be remembered that Post Office employment is sui generis. There is no comparing it with the ordinary labour, upon which market rates of wages are
    1282
    fixed. In estimating its price or quality we must judge of it as a private employer would judge of faithful service on the part of men placed in positions of trust. I feel confident that if increased wages were paid to these rural postmen in Ireland the Department would not have to complain of excessive expenditure, but would find that its receipts would grow sufficiently to recoup it amply for the outlay.
    MR. JOHN WILSON: If the hon. Member who has just sat down will kindly look at the not results as well as the gross amount for Post Office services, he will find that the Government has more benefit for the £202,000 given in Scotland than from the £127,000 given in Ireland. [Sir Joseph M'KENNA: I quite admit that.] The hon. Member put it as though the Scotch services were higher paid. I contend that the Scotch service is much more extended, and is much more productive in its net results. Hon. Gentlemen must look at net results, and not at gross sums; and if they do they will find that the amount of work done in Scotland is greater than the amount done in Ireland. I agree with what has fallen from some hon. Members on the other side of the House to the effect that the payments made to rural postmen are inadequate. In Scotland we have post-runners. They are very hard worked; they have to go out every day, no matter what the weather is—be it good or bad, sunshine or rain. They have to travel over very heavy roads and very long roads; and I think it is a circumstance well known to the Post Office authorities that these men, on an average, are shortlived. Many of them are frequently laid up from sickness caused by the hardships they have to undergo. I agree with the Secretary to the Treasury that we are all on this (the Ministerial) side of the House pledged to economy; but, at the same time, it is clearly false economy to underpay any class of public servants, more especially hard-working and poor men, who discharge an important service to the Stato—a class whoso pay is small, whoso work is hard, and whose lives are comparatively short. I agree with the hon. Member who gays that economy may be reached by devoting attention, when we revise the Estimates, to the reconsideration of all

    1283
    salaries, in order to see whether, as the higher class posts become vacant, we cannot curtail the higher salaries—those, I mean, from £500 to £1,000 and £1,500—and eke out a little more the salaries of such public servants as these rural postmen with whom we have so much sympathy.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I cannot regard it as altogether a satisfactory state of things that the Secretary to the Treasury should have in this House to attend to the business of the Post Office as well as do his own work. I know he has a great deal to do in his own particular Department; therefore, when I see that he has to deal with all the grievances which are raised in the House of Commons in regard to Post Office matters, I must say I think we ought to have someone here especially to represent the Post Office. However, as the hon. Member is so efficient in other Departments, perhaps he will be able to set right a matter which I will proceed to bring under his notice. After a great deal of pressure £6,000 was given for the purpose of accelerating the mails in Ireland. That was a handsome sum to grant; but, at the same time, it has been so granted that two-thirds of my constituents——
    The CHAIRMAN: I must call the hon. and gallant Member's attention to the fact that this increase refers only to the salaries of postmasters.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I think I am speaking to the point, Sir; for I imagine the salary of the postmaster or postmasters ought to be reduced for not properly attending to this matter, or possibly ought to be increased. The point is a very obvious one. I cannot, as a private Member, propose an increase of the Vote; but I would, on the principle laid down by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, suggest that if the officials concerned were properly paid we should find this work much better attended to. Again, perhaps it is rather a question of organization than of payment; and of course, Sir, if you rule me out of Order, I will not press the question. I wish to explain that the district of Tuam and North Galway generally is suffering from this grant of £6,000 a-year. It is suffering from this acceleration of mails, and in this very simple way. There are two cross lines of railway, one of which gets money for the purpose of
    1284
    accelerating the mails, whilst the other does not; and the result is that the district I refer to loses a post——
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must again call the hon. and gallant Gentleman's attention to the fact that he is wandering from the Question before the Committee.
    COLONEL NOLAN: In that case, Sir, I will not press the subject further.
    Mr. JOHNS: We are here to look into the public Expenditure; and I would ask, therefore, is this not a question of supply and demand more than anything else? Where there is one vacancy under the Post Office there are a dozen men anxious to fill it. Although it may appear ungracious to disagree with Irish Members opposite, seeing it is now the fashion to agree to all they desire, I am bound to say that this seems to me simply a question of supply and demand. I therefore think it would be a bad policy to vote for any Public Department, either in Ireland or Scotland, paying higher wages than the men are prepared to take.
    MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: I sympathize very much with what has been said as to the necessity of increasing the salaries of some of the rural postmen and postmasters. I am aware that there are considerable complaints in some districts in Ireland in regard to postmasters having the option of delivering letters on Sundays or not, as they please, and that many people desire to see new regulations made for dealing with this matter. Considerable inconvenience is occasioned to the public by the postmasters possessing the option I refer to; because in many cases persons only come into the rural towns to which their letters are addressed on Sundays; and if they do not get their letters on that day they have to go without them for a considerable time. The present regulation is a very objectionable one, though it seems to me it will occasion very little inconvenience to the postmasters if it is altered. The authorities ought to remedy the evil. There is a point in connection with these rural postmen which I think the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury has not grasped. He has said that their minimum salary is 16s. per week. There is an entire misapprehension as to that. If these men were regular officials of the Post Office, no doubt 16. would be the minimum; but many

    1285
    of them are not. They are regarded as employés of the postmasters and sub-postmasters. The postmasters and sub-postmasters, of course, have a reason for practising economy which they would not have if they were dealing with the money of the Post Office. Although it has been stated here that the minimum salary of these postmen is 16 s. per week, in many cases it is 10s. per week, or less.
    Mr. BARRY: I am glad, at all events, to hear that the salary of the regular employés is not less than 16 s. per week. I think, however, that what has been said has been sufficient to induce the Post Office authorities to make a general inquiry into this matter. I agree with the principle that the payment of State servants should be according to the laws of supply and demand; but whilst I agree with that principle, I object strongly to its being rigorously enforced against the lower grade servants, whilst it is not applied to the higher grade servants. I happen to know that in the Dublin Post Office there are a number of gentlemen with salaries ranging from £300 to £1,500 a-year, who, if we applied this principle of supply and demand to them, would be receiving much less salaries. I hope the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury will have a hand in framing the Estimates for next year; and if he has, I trust he will take care to apply the principle laid down to-night, and apply it impartially, both to the higher and lower grade servants.
    Vote agreed to.

  NAVY (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1885–6).
  (12.) 2,500 Men and Boys, Navy.
  (13.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £308,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886, to meet additional Expenditure for Navy Services."
  Dr. CAMERON: Mr. Courtney, the Vote now before the Committee contains an item of £32,200 as a Supplementary Grant for Naval Dockyards at Home and Abroad. I propose the reduction of the Vote by this amount. Some weeks ago a statement appeared in one of the leading newspapers to the effect that another deficit, amounting to £200,000,
  1286
  had been discovered in the accounts of the Admiralty; and that statement was supplemented by another statement to the effect that it had hitherto been the practice of the Construction Department of the Admiralty to minimize the work done by contract, so as to insure a balance on the Contract Vote, with which balance they made up any deficiency that might arise in the Dockyard Vote. Now, the meaning of that statement, if it were true, would be that this House had been asked, year after year, to vote more money for work to be done by contract than was wanted for that purpose; that, systematically, less work than had been agreed to by the House was done by contract in private yards; that (he work was kept back in order that each year there might be a balance; and that that balance, instead of being handed into the Exchequer, had been appropriated to the purposes of another Vote altogether; that the Dockyards had been conducted is such a way that a much larger sum had been spent in them than was authorized by Parliament; and that the deficiency in them was made good by money which was saved off the Contract Vote. I asked my hon. Friend the late Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Eitchie) a Question in reference to the subject, and I ascertained from him that the statement as to the deficit of £200,000 was not quite correct. As a matter of fact, the hon. Gentleman had so pushed forward the contract work that £170,000 worth of work had been done more than had been estimated for and voted for by Parliament. I am not going to challenge the wisdom of pushing the work on. It would doubtless have been more regular had a closer estimate been made; but I am of opinion that it is much more profitable to the country to have its shipbuilding pushed forward rapidly. It is anything but an economic system to keep a ship on the stocks for six, seven, eight, or nine years, when it could be turned out in three years; therefore, I do not at all challenge that portion of the matter, and I do not intend in the least to find fault with my hon. Friend (Mr. Ritchie) for pushing forward the work by contract. But he went on to say, in reply to the second part of my Question, that for some years past the whole amounts inserted in the Estimates for contract work had not been so expended; but considerable

  1287
  sums had been utilized for the purchase of stores and for Dockyard wages. He added that in five years a sum of £300,000 voted by this House for work to be done by contract in private yards had not been used for that purpose, but paid to make good deficiencies in the accounts of the Dockyards. Now, that appears to me to be a very improper system. It was discovered, apparently, only accidentally. Had the permanent officials been allowed to keep back the work done on contract as usual, we should have had a similar excess in the Contract Vote forthcoming this year also to pay for the excess of expenditure in the Dockyards, and this sum now before the Committee would not have come under our cognizance. It is lucky that the energy of my hon. Friend (Mr. Ritchie) was the means of his discovering this irregularity. When we have this sort of thing occurring year after year—and it appears to have amounted to a system—I think we should take cognizance of the matter, and mark our disapprobation of the system by a reduction of the Vote. There can be no doubt we cannot have the smallest control over the expenditure so long as this kind of thing is allowed to go on. I do not mean to say that the transfer of this money from one Vote to the other has been illegal. I believe that the formal sanction of the House is asked every year; but it is asked at a time when no one knows anything about it. I am certain the statement of the hon. Gentleman the late Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Ritchie) must have been a revelation to most Members, even to old Members of the House; and I have no doubt that the discovery must have been a revelation to the hon. Gentleman himself when he made it. I move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £32,200.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Item of £32,200, for Dockyards at Home and Abroad, he omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Dr. Cameron.)
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. HIBBERT): I do not find fault with my hon. Friend (Dr. Cameron) for raising this question; at the same time, I think that he has made rather more of the complaint than he is justified in doing, considering that no excess is transferred from one Vote to another without the matter going through a very
  1288
  careful process of examination. In the first place, the Department cannot apply money which has been voted for contract work to any other work without the consent of the Treasury, and then the transfer has to be passed by the Public Accounts Committee, and placed in the Appropriation Account. Therefore, there are three different processes through which the matter has to go before it can receive public assent. At the same time, I quite agree with the principle my hon. Friend has enunciated—namely, that it is not a desirable thing, supposing it is done intentionally, that the Department should put down for any particular Vote a larger sum than they know will be employed, with the intention of using the surplus for other purposes. It is desirable that, with regard to every Vote, the fullest information should be obtained by the Department, and that the Estimate should be prepared is accordance with that information. Now, upon the particular point to which allusion has been made, and which has given rise to the application to the House for the payment of £32,000 upon the Contract Vote, I must say that I do not find fault either with the Admiralty Department for any mistake they have made to cause this excess—I do not find fault either with the late Liberal Government or with the late Conservative Government in respect of it, and for the very reason that I believe the whole cause of this increased demand for contract work is entirely owing to the depression in trade which exists in the country. There are very few of the shipbuilding yards to which these contracts have been given where there is much work going on except Government work; and I am informed that it has been necessary for the different contractors to push on our work more rapidly than they would have otherwise have done owing to the fact that they have no other work, or very little other work, in their yards. Well, I do not think we should find fault with the contractors for getting through the work as rapidly as they can; and I do not think that it is anything but in the interest of the nation that the ships which are being built should be completed as soon as possible. Of course, it is very unpleasant not to have calculated or taken a sufficient amount for what we require. Now, the facts are these. For the machinery of the various

  1289
  ships which were given out by contract —the large ships of the Scout class— there was estimated a sum of £72,000, and for the first-class torpedo boats it was reckoned that £55,000 would be spent. The expenditure has turned out to be—on the first class of boats £126,606, an excess of £54,606; and on the second class £64,000, an excess of £9,000, showing a total excess of £63,606. But there are surpluses upon the machinery contract for other ships which brings the deficiency down to a sum of £14,000. When we come to the hull of the ships we come to a very much larger question. We find that in building the hulls of five different ships—fivelarge ships—the contractors have earned during the year £176,625 more than it was estimated they would earn; and, therefore, we have been obliged to come to the Committee for an increased grant to make good the contractors' demands. Well, now, it may be said that when the tenders were accepted we might have calculated what the amount would be which would be earned in the year. I have taken a great deal of trouble to inquire into the matter; and, as far as I can gather, no accurate information as to the earnings upon the ships in course of construction was obtained at the Admiralty till the month of November in last year. When the amount earned was discovered the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton), who was then the First Lord of the Admiralty, very properly approved of the payment of this excess, and decided that the progress of the ships, though this excess was being earned, was not to be impeded. I think it is quite right that no attempt should have been made to check the progress of the ships, if we consider first of all the desirability of having the ships completed as soon as possible, and, in the next place, the un-desirability of placing the contractors in the position of having to discharge a large number of their workmen. On these grounds, as I have said, I have no fault to find either with one Government or the other; but place the whole fault, if there is any fault at all, upon the unfortunate state of the trade of the country. Well, owing to the suddenness with which the information in regard to the earnings on these ships was sprung upon the Admiralty, I inquired as to what was the system which was adopted to ascertain the earnings on the ships
  1290
  which were to be built by contract; and I found that we have overseers in all the yards of the country; that it is the duty of these overseers to report, from time to time, to the Admiralty what amount of work has been done; and also that in the month of October it is usual for the Admiralty to send down an officer to inspect and report upon the amount of money which has been earned. Well, this year that was done, and the Admiralty received a Report from their officer, which showed that this large additional sum was due to the contractors. Now, what I have to say upon the system is that the Controller has very properly laid down a more stringent system of report with respect to the earnings on ships, a system which will enable him to know from month to month, more accurately than he has hitherto been able to do, the amount of money which is earned. But I do not think it ever will be possible to estimate closely the exact amount which the contractors will be able to earn during any particular year. You can only do it by making a contract subject to the condition that the contractor shall only do work in each year which amounts to a certain sum of money. If you make a contract for the ship to be completed not later than a certain date you must leave the contractor at liberty to work rapidly or slowly according to the state of business in his yard. I do not think that unless we have a very stringent contract —a contract very different to that we have been accustomed to make—we can with any certainty say what is the exact amount earned from one year to another. At the same time, if you put contractors under very stringent conditions the probability is that in the end you will have to pay more for the building of your vessels. The more liberty you grant your contractor as to the rapidity of the work, the cheaper you get the work done, and that is an object which the Admiralty and the nation should have in view. I have only one thing more to say. My hon. Friend (Dr. Cameron) was quite right in saying that for five years previous to the present there had been surpluses in the Contract Vote. I find that there was a surplus in 1880 of £86,000; in 1881 of £36,000; in 1882 of £81,000; in 1883 of £103,000; and in 1884–5 of £199,000. Therefore, I think the fact that there have been these surpluses in

  1291
  past years shows that the Department were quite justified in not estimating for a larger amount than they did. I should have thought my hon. Friend would have been pleased that the Department had not estimated for a larger amount, because it has been the means of bringing this matter under the notice of the Committee. I can only say, in conclusion, that this matter is one which entirely depends on the state of trade, and that I do not blame the Department, and I do not blame any person who has had anything to do with the building of the vessels.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: Mr. Courtney, I desire to offer a correction to the statement of my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Hibbert), in regard to the form in which Treasury sanction is given to the transfer of surpluses on some Votes to meet deficiencies on other Votes. I admit sanction to be officially required. I also allow that without Treasury sanction the Auditor and Comptroller General would refuse to pass accounts of the Army or Navy in which transfers have been made. I, however, say that the mode in which this sanction is given is delusive. In former Parliaments I endeavoured to expose these defects; but, having failed, I have of late years been silent. In now again urging my views, I do so in the hope that the present Parliament may contain financial reformers more numerous and more earnest than those found in former Parliaments. I therefore respectfully request the new Members to study the Reports of the Auditor General on the accounts of the Army and Navy. There they will find that not a year passes without transfers of large surpluses on some Votes being allowed by the Treasury to cover excesses on other Votes. This sanction was a check established 40 years ago, intended to enable the Treasury to enforce correctness in estimating. But in recent years it was neutralized by the War Office and Admiralty applying for transfers towards the end of the year. Indeed, at times the application is made after the close of the financial year. This facility of obtaining at the end of the year funds to cover the expenses incurred in previous months led to laxity in calculating at the beginning of the year. And thus the Treasury has been deprived of the power of enforcing ex-
  1292
  actness in the provision of stores and ships, by pointing out the incorrect estimating. Another objection to this delay in applying is the opening given for under-estimating the charge for some Votes, in the full expectation of covering deficiencies from over-estimating other Votes, which may be expected to be readily passed by the House of Commons. A tabulation for some years of such excesses and deficiencies might be usefully furnished to expose the bad practice. We have just heard of serious defects in the Naval Accounts, where the outlay on ships built by contract has largely fallen below the estimated amount, and that the surplus has been used in covering excesses on other Votes. This is a source of great danger, because the country has been deluded into the idea that the Naval Estimates provided more vessels than were paid for by the accounts. In alluding to this serious defect in the Naval Accounts, I wish to express approval of the useful reform initiated by the noble Lord the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton), and carried out by the late Secretary to the Admiralty, the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie); and if I venture to allude to a defect in the new system, I am confident the noble Lord will believe that I fully appreciate his good work. The defect I alluded to is not clearly defining the respective amounts of the outlay, or the respective liabilities in the current and coming official year. In carrying on the business of two great Departments of the Army and Navy, it is not only essential that the greatest possible freedom should be allowed the heads of branches, to issue orders for work or supplies of stores, but that the amounts to be expended should be clearly known. To this end, these heads should be required to specify as closely as possible the extent of the orders to be in force for and the sums to be expended in current and coming years, and thus enable the Accountant General to calculate the funds needed in the respective years. In this way the danger of having financial blunders, in the form of surpluses and excesses on Votes such as we so often hear of, would be in part guarded against, or at least lessened. This full freedom to heads of branches to open orders for expenditure ought, however, to be exercised with care. This can

  1293
  best be done by specifying clearly the data as to the amount of work or stores to be provided, and within what period, and the Accountant General can thereby estimate the liabilities of the year, and be able to bring to the notice of the First Lord and Parliamentary Secretary the sums falling due on certain dates in excess of the grants. The next reform I have always advocated at home and in India has been in requiring all surpluses of Votes to be relinquished, in the same way that surpluses on the total Vote are given up at the close of the financial year. And on any Vote requiring additional funds for meeting this necessity immediately it is discovered, a Supplemental Estimate should be prepared, and submitted for the sanction of the Treasury, with a statement of the dates on which the amount previously granted by Parliament had been expended. But, like all other official arrangements, success or failure will depend on the mode of carrying out these conditions. A close and functional scrutiny by the First Lord and Parliamentary Secretary over the monthly or weekly statements of financial results and Estimates of the Accountant General can alone secure correctness in accounting.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Hibbert) has explained so much with regard to this Vote that it is not necessary for me to supplement to any great extent what he has said. But the hon. Gentleman did not explain one point. There is a natural reluctance on the part of the House of Commons, which I assure hon. Members that I fully share, to assent to any large sum, either in the Original or in the Supplementary Estimates, which will lead to a permanent addition to the annual expenditure. Now, this sum of £200,000 which is under discussion, so far from being a permanent addition to, is an absolute reduction of, existing liabilities which will have to be met in a subsequent year, and which have not in any way during the current year been replaced by a sum of corresponding amount. What was done was simply this. Members of the late House of Commons will recollect that the Earl of Northbrook, on behalf of Mr. Gladstone's Government then in Office, undertook, in order to bring up the strength of the Navy to the requisite level, to spend in a period
  1294
  of five years the sum of £3,160,000 in the construction of ships put out to contract, and that he and his Colleagues made an Estimate of the sum which for five years would be incurred under contract. Well, Sir, their Estimates were carefully made at the time, no doubt but they had no accurate calculation of the cost of similar contracts which had been made before by the Admiralty. And in the first year, owing to the unusual depression of trade, there was £200,000 worth more of work done by the contractors than had been contemplated—in other words, they have reduced the liabilities which would have had to be met in another year by £200,000. Again, by this the contractors were enabled to keep a larger number of men employed during a time of pressure, while the Naval Service and the nation gets the benefit so much sooner of the ships in course of construction; and it should be remembered, in these days of rapid improvement, that this is a most important point, because a new ship, with all modern appliances, is in the early years of existence a most formidable fighting machine. I agree very much with the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron). He alluded to the fact that he had the result of three years' Estimates of the Admiralty to show that there had been a considerable surplus on the sum of money devoted to contract work, which surplus was devoted to meet deficiencies in Dockyards. I agree that if you wish anyone in the capacity of an official at the Admiralty or in the House of Commons to exercise proper control over the expenditure, the Estimates should be framed with the utmost care, and that no new Estimates should receive the sanction of the House or Committee until the consent of the Treasury is obtained to the transfer of the money from one Vote to another. But the excess in this year is easily accounted for. The Estimates were based on the assumption that the contractors would be able to earn in a given time all the money to which they were entitled. It was unusual for them to perform all the work which would entitle them to claim all the money. Now, however, for the first time, the circumstances are reversed, and the contractors are very consider-I ably in advance with the work. The I Admiralty had to consider the question

  1295
  whether they would sanction that excess, or insist on the contracts being more slowly executed, which would have involved the discharge of a certain number of men, and added to the number of unemployed men at the present moment; and, inasmuch as there was a call for ships to add to the strength of the Navy, we decided that the extra work should be done, having confidence that, when it was explained that the sum of £200,000 would be deducted from the liabilities of future years, the House of Commons would come to the conclusion that we were right in the judgment at which we had arrived. Well, Sir, the alterations made in the last few months will, I hope, insure more accurate Estimates in future. I do not say that they are perfect; but the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Hibbert), as is well known, is a man of business; and if any defects in the system were found by him there is no doubt that he will do his best to remedy them. The Inspectors of the Admiralty used to report every three months; but the Board under the late Government altered that arrangement, and required them to report every month; and if they think that the work done in any of the yards is in excess of that contained in the Estimates they are at once to report. I do not think a similar error is likely to occur again but I believe that the present Board of Admiralty will find that they under-estimated the cost of arming the ships, and the sums of money necessary to meet contracts already entered into. I think it only right that they should have a distinct warning of this, because, although I cannot tell what may be the ultimate sum Which the present Board of Admiralty may decide upon in presenting to the House the Estimates for the forthcoming year, I am certain that they will find large liabilities hanging over them which must be met sooner than they anticipate, and which will cause a temporary increase in the Naval Estimates for the next two or three years. But I do not think that increase will be permanent, and I trust it will be succeeded by some considerable reduction.
  MR. RYLANDS: I am sure that the explanation given by my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Hibbert), and by the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex, is perfectly satisfactory. Allow me to remind the Com-
  1296
  mittee that in this case we have absolutely reversed the policy of former years. Government has before comedown to the House with the Naval Estimates, which provided for considerable expenditure for the purchase of vessels, and, instead of insisting upon those vessels being completed in the shortest possible space of time, have allowed the contracts to hang fire, so to speak. We have paid very large sums of money upon unfinished vessels which it has seemed to me are, until completed, useless to the country. I have from time to time urged upon successive Boards of Admiralty that the great and most essential point in dealing with moneys paid for construction of ships for the Navy should be, that we should construct our vessels in the Dockyards in a shorter time, and that in giving contracts we should bind down the contractors by heavy penalties with regard to the time of delivery; and rather than have delay I would give them a bonus for completion before the time. You had formerly several million pounds worth of property which in the event of war would be utterly useless. During the long periods in which the vessels are building, discoveries are made which render our arrangements obsolete; and so, after spending seven years perhaps in building, we find ourselves in possession of vessels which are not at all equal to the vessels purchased by foreign Governments, and built in a much shorter time than they can be by us. But I understand the matter of which the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) complains is that large sums of money have been used for purposes not contemplated by the Vote of Parliament. I think it an objectionable, although it is a legal arrangement, that these sums should be so diverted with the consent of the Treasury. But there was a greater mischief than that; and my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty knows as well as I do that when this sum of money was in hand at the close of the financial year the Admiralty anticipated claims from contractors. What for? Not in the interest of the public; but this money to the extent of, perhaps, £250,000 was paid to the contractors at an earlier period, because if that had not taken place before the end of the financial year, it would have had to be surrendered to the Exchequer. My hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty

  1297
  tells us very correctly, no doubt, the case of these vessels. The late Board of Admiralty found that the contractors were getting on more rapidly than was expected with work which it was considered would extend over several years; and it would have been simply an act of idiotcy to say to the contractors—"We will not allow you to get on with the vessels sooner than we contemplated." As I have said, it is better that in making contracts the Admiralty should bind the contractors to finish the work as speedily as possible; but even then, if the contractors are able to complete the ships sooner than the time fixed, they should be encouraged by a bonus to do so. If my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow goes to a division I shall be bound to support the Government.
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: My hon. Friend seems to imply that in former years the Admiralty systematically over-estimated the amount of work to be executed under contract. I can assure my hon. Friend that the greatest disappointment was felt when the contractors failed to perform their duties as rapidly as was expected. In consequence of the enormous expansion of the shipping interest of the country, the contractors were formerly placed in great difficulties, both as to the supply of materials of shipbuilding and the supply of labour. Last year, owing to the condition of the shipbuilding industry, the conditions were entirely reversed, and we found ourselves necessitated to deal with the excess expenditure by means of a Supplementary Estimate. My hon. Friend will now, I think, admit that there was no intention to exaggerate the amount of work to be done by contract with a view to transfer portions of the money to the Dockyard expenditure.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I think the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) has been entirely misunderstood. The hon. Gentleman (Sir Thomas Brassey) speaks as if my hon. Friend complained that a large portion of the money voted was paid over to outside contractors. That is not his complaint at all, and he did not propose to reduce that item in the Vote. It is the sum of £32,000 for the increased cost of Dockyards that my hon. Friend objects to; he complains that the increase is not exceptional, but that
  1298
  it has been going on for the last five or six years. Not only has the Admiralty every year over-estimated contracts; but they have, at the same time, under-estimated the expenditure on the Dockyard Establishments, and the money voted for building new ships under contract has been diverted to pay for the increased outlay on Dockyards. Now that cannot be done this year, because the contractors have executed a larger amount of work than has been expected, and the Vote for work done by contract has not been available for Dockyard work. That is the reason why the Board of Admiralty come to the House for this increased sum of £30,000. My hon. Friend objects to and challenges this permanent increase of charge for Dockyard expenditure. There is no challenge of the amount for payments to contractors for building vessels under contract; the amount objected to is, as I have said, £32,000, for a permanent increase of the Dockyard Establishments. I hope hon. Members will show their appreciation of the principles of economy by calling this Vote in question. The increase has been going on for years, and I think the Committee ought to show their opinion on the subject by going into the Lobby against it.
  MR. RITCHIE: I think that the object of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) is thoroughly understood by the Committee. I imagine that the hon. Member, in moving his Amendment, was not seriously challenging this Vote, but that he wished to call attention to the practice which has been followed during many years of paying less money to contractors for contract work than was put down in the original Estimates. If the course proposed by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) be adopted, and the Committee were to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow, it would practically amount to a censure on the Government for having decided to employ in the Dockyards of the country a number of men whom they found there when they came into Office. Looking at the importance of expediting the building of ships and of not throwing out of employment a large number of men during a time of great depression, I am satisfied that the Committee will consider that the late Board of Admiralty did right in follow-

  1299
  ing that course rather than keeping within the Estimates of the year. I am sure that all those who desire the efficiency of the Navy will be pleased to have heard the remarks of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) tonight. The hon. Member has been for many years one of the staunchest advocates of economy in this House; and, therefore, the fact that the hon. Member has risen to support the extra payment we have made to contractors during the current year must be a great inducement to the Government to maintain the present policy, that whether our ships are being built under contract or in the Dockyards of the country they should be completed as quickly as possible. It is evident that what the hon. Gentleman states is correct—namely, that the sooner necessary and desirable works are completed, and the sooner the money spent is brought into fruitful operation, the better it is for the country and the economy of the Public Service. I desire that there should be no misunderstanding with reference to the particular sum of £200,000, which has been spoken of by some hon. Members as a mistake, and by others as a sum required owing to a discovery made by the late Government that the money had been spent. But, Sir, it was neither the one nor the other. When the subject came to our notice the money had not been spent. It would have been in the power of the Board of Admiralty, if they had chosen, to take extreme measures, not to have spent the money. In the month of November it was known that if the work were to go on at the same rate as before, the liability at the end of the year would be in excess of the amount estimated; and, looking at the fact that it was not desirable to have the men discharged, and that it was necessary to have the ships built, we felt we should do what we believed the House would justify—namely, allow the shipbuilding to go on. With regard to the practice during the past two or three years, no doubt every year has shown that the whole amount voted had not been paid to contractors. In some years the amount has been extremely large; in others it has not been so large; but always considerable. Now, Sir, I admit that the fact of this occurring looks rather as if very little effort was made by Boards of Admiralty to see
  1300
  that contractors proceeded with due rapidity to execute the work they had in hand, and that they were not unwilling that they should be provided with a surplus on one Vote in order to meet a deficiency on another. I say that in a matter of finance that is an unsound principle—it is distinctly so. Of course, it cannot be contended that the prophecies at the beginning of the year as to the amount of money to be earned by the contractors should always he fulfilled; but it certainly has an awkward look when they are never fulfilled in one particular direction, and it would rather look as if contractors regarded the work of the Government as a sort of convenience, and that they felt they were justified in taking whatever work came to their hands, even though they retarded the work of the Government. Now, I am of opinion that this is a principle which ought not to be admitted. The work at the contractors' yards ought, in our opinion, to be inspected monthly; and not only do we think that the Admiralty Inspectors should report, month by month, to the Government that the contractors are proceeding with the work, but that the contractors themselves should be called upon to proceed with the work as rapidly as they ought; and I believe, by the arrangements made at the Admiralty by the late Government, that it will be in the power of future Boards to keep more within the Estimates than has hitherto been the case. In conclusion, I venture to express a hope that the policy of the present Government with regard to the Navy will be the policy of their Predecessors, the cardinal point of which was that all work necessary for the country, whether executed in public or private Dockyards, should be proceeded with as expeditiously as possible.
  MR. LANE: On this Vote I wish to call the attention of the Committee for a few moments to another branch of the Dockyard question. At Question time this afternoon I asked the Secretary to the Admiralty for information with reference to a particular Dockyard in course of construction. In reply to my Question the hon. Gentleman stated that the Dockyard, which was comparatively small, had been in course of construction for 22 years; that upon it there had been expended already the sum of £490,000; and that the work was intended to be

  1301
  completed about the end of this year. The hon. Gentleman supplemented that information by stating that there were originally plans and estimates for the erection of workshops in connection with the Dockyard, but that it had been discovered that the plans required alteration, and that it was not the intention of the Admiralty to proceed with the construction of the workshops until the Dockyard was completed.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that the item under discussion relates to work in Dockyards, and not to work in connection with them.
  MR. LANE: I was under the impression that I might be out of Order in raising the question on the present Vote; and I asked an hon. Friend, more experienced in the House than I am, whether I should discuss it on Vote 11. If I shall be in Order in doing so on that Vote, I will postpone my observations until it comes forward.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will be in Order in referring to the subject on Vote 11.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Brunner.)
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: I think the Committee is very much indebted to the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) for having recalled them to the real point of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron).
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: Mr. Courtney, I rise to Order. I understand that we are on a Motion to report Progress.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I did not understand that the hon. Member moved.
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: I was about to point out that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House who represent and have represented the Admiralty have praised one another for their exceedingly good administration when they were in Office; and yet the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Hibbert) tells us that arrangements have now been made to prevent such slipshod management as has occurred taking place at the Admiralty in future. A large sum of money seems to have been wandering about, so to speak; no one seems to have been
  1302
  able to identify it, or to say where it came from or where it was going, and we are told that the Board of Admiralty were not aware that this large sum of money would come from a Supplementary Vote. I believe that the hon. Member for Glasgow, after the discussion that has taken place, would be perfectly satisfied if some assurance were given him, that the Admiralty Accounts would be so kept in future that a vagrant sum of £32,000 will not hereafter be found wandering about.
  MR. BRUNNER: In moving to report Progress I only desire that the Prime Minister's undertaking with regard to the introduction of the Crofters Bill shall be fulfilled, or, if not fulfilled absolutely, then fulfilled as near as it can be.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. HIBBERT): I hope that the hon. Member will not press his Motion for Progress. The introduction of the Crofters' Bill is a very important matter which we all want to hear; but I think in a very short time we shall be able to dispose of this Vote.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  DR. CAMERON: If I had got any assurance that the state of things of which I complain will be remedied in the future I should not have pressed this Motion. But I have got nothing of the sort, although an attempt has been made to draw a red-herring across the path, and therefore I intend to take a division. My complaint is that for the last five years—and, in fact, every year—the contract work has been over-estimated systematically, and that the over-estimated money has been taken to meet increased Dockyard expenditure. That was a most vicious system, and it has been exposed simply by an accident. We are told that there are safeguards against it such as the appropriation on Public Accounts Committee and the audit. Well, Sir, for five years this most vicious system has been going on unchecked by any check, and I propose now to introduce another check in the form of a division in this House.
  MR. JACKS: There is one cause for the deficit, which, as one connected with shipbuilding, I rather wonder has not been referred to; and this is the alterations which are made at the instigation

  1303
  of the Government officials after the work in the shipyard has been proceeded with. I would like an assurance that none of this deficit has arisen in this way. There should be some undertaking that such expense should be clearly stated, and not made up out of the over-estimate for contract work.
  SIR DONALD CURRIE: In reference to the five years spoken of, I should like to point out that it is well known what difficulties contractors have had to deal with. It need not be a matter of surprise if estimated contract work was not delivered in those five years. Every shipowner knows the difficulties of that period. Why, I have had steamers nine months behind time in being delivered; and I consider that the pressing forward of contract work, and the speedy delivery of that work during the last year, is very largely to the credit of the Admiralty and of the shipbuilders. When we had doubts last year as to the efficiency of our Navy in the event of a naval war it was urged in that Admiralty that they should increase our Meet with as little delay as possible. The country is now in a much better position as a Naval Power; and I think the late Administration of the Admiralty deserves praise for what they have done. The present Administration also deserves the best thanks of this House for the energy they have displayed.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 67; Noes 246: Majority 179.—(Div. List, No. 11.)
  MR. DEASY: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Hibbert) what is the intention of the Government with regard to the erection of workshops and houses at the Haulbowline Dockyard?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. HIBBERT): There is nothing in the Vote before the Committee in respect to Haulbowline; but it is due to the hon. Member to say, in answer to what he has stated on the subject, that it is not the intention of the Government to lose sight of the workshops referred to. As soon as the works now in operation are completed plans will be prepared for the workshops, and the work will be carried out. Provision
  1304
  will probably be made for the work in the Estimates next year.
  MR. LANE: I understand that it is not intended to erect these workshops just at the present moment, but that when the Dockyard itself is finished then they will commence to erect them. The question is of great importance to my constituents. There are a great number of shipwrights in Queenstown and there abouts, and who are in the greatest distress at the present moment.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Allow me to point out to the hon. Member that although this Vote deals with Dockyards there is nothing in it with regard to Haulbowline; and, therefore, the observations he is making are not in Order.
  MR. BRUNNER: I do not profess to be the Keeper of the Conscience of Her Majesty's Ministers; but I wish to remind the Committee of the undertaking of the Prime Minister, and I beg to move that we report Progress.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Brunner.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE): For the convenience of the House I may be allowed to state that on Monday we propose to take the Votes relating to Sir Henry Drummond Wolff's Mission and Bechuanaland.
  MOTIONS.
    CROFTERS (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.

      MOTION FOR LEAVE.
      THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. TREVELYAN): Sir, in this House, which, so far as I can judge from the experience of last Wednesday, likes short speeches, I shall introduce this great subject as briefly as I can, consistently with my desire to give the House a very clear view of the intentions of Her Majesty's Government, in

      1305
      order that hon. Gentlemen who follow me may utilize the evening for their criticisms. This is a subject which is very familiar to the House. It is familiar to Members of the last Parliament, not so much for the great number of debates which took place with regard to it, but on account of the great interest which those debates excited. The unanimity of the interest which was felt in the crofters was very striking. In no case has any Resolution, the most favour able to the crofters, been rejected. In no case has it even been seriously opposed. Everybody has spoken kindly of them, and has united in calling for very strong and decided legislation with regard to them. The latest of all these calls for legislation is, I venture to think, the strongest and the most remarkable that ever was made by a unanimous House of Commons. On the 14th of November, 1884, it was resolved—
      "That, in the opinion of this House, it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the condition of the crofters and cottars in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, or to apply such other remedies as they deem advisable; and that this House concurs in the opinion expressed by the Royal Commission, at page 110 of its Report, that 'The mere vindication of authority and repression of resistance would not establish the relations of mutual confidence between landlord and tenant, in the absence of which the country would not be truly at peace, and all our inquiries and counsels would be expended in vain.'"
      That, Sir, is the Resolution of the House of Commons; and it is a very serious thing to think that that Resolution was passed 18 months ago, and has not been carried into effect yet the population referred to in the Resolution—a population which, the House will remember, all the while we have been engaged on other subjects of great interest, have all that time been thinking of nothing else except this question. This population would naturally say, as month after month passed away, that Parliament had forgotten the first and remedial part of the Resolution, and had fallen back upon that mere assertion of the majesty of the law which is openly and statedly repudiated by Parliament as being insufficient in itself to meet the wants of the occasion; and they would consider, as I am sorry to say many of them are considering, that
      1306
      their civil obligations are weakened. I do not wish to paint in too dark colours the social condition of some portions of the Western Highlands; but I do say this—that both as regards the payment of rent and the payment of poor rates and education rates, that condition is such that the present Government would not be justified, and the late Government would not have been justified, in leaving it without the most serious attention, if it had not been for the Resolution of November, 1884, and the state of the conscience of the country and the Parliament which that Resolution implies. But it is high time that this state of things should stop. It is high time that Parliament, having expressed so strong an opinion, should carry that opinion into action. The words of Parliament should always be made good, and if I were a private Scotch Member I should feel a responsibility in this matter; but as Secretary for Scotland I cannot consent to delay any longer—I cannot be a party, I should say, to delay any longer dealing with a matter which we are bound to deal with now, not only for the sake of the crofters, but for the sake of the landlords, and for the sake of the local administration of this country. I hope hon. Members will realize to themselves that we have come to a very serious stage of the question. Up to this time Parliament has been expressing sympathy with the crofters in such a manner that the crofters, on their part, have been led to the belief that something very real is going to be done for them. The time has now come to carry that sympathy into action, and hon. Members must make up their minds that there is no use in the Government making any proposals which will not effectually deal with the question. lean imagine Parliament saying to the crofters—" We are very sorry for you; we consider you a very interesting population; we thought you had been ill-used; we promised to do a great deal for you; but when we came to look at the question practically we saw it was so thorny and difficult that we did not venture to attack it seriously, and we gave it up as a bad job." That would be one way of getting out of our engagements, and I do not think it would be a good way; but there is still a worse way—that is, for us to propose to Parliament to pass a Bill which professes to do a great

      1307
      deal for the crofters, but which the Government who brought it in and the Parliament who passed it knew quite well did not deal with the point of the situation. What is the point of the situation? What is the reason that Parliament is interested in this population? It is partly from respect for their character; it is partly from the interest which everyone who travels and reads takes in them and the country in which they live; but it is, above all, that as a population they suffer from a very great grievance, which I hope is not irremediable. That grievance is that, taking the population of the Highlands as a whole, they were originally a population under circumstances entirely different from those which now exist, and that those circumstances were altered by no fault of theirs for the benefit of others, and that, owing to that alteration of circumstances, they are now in a very depressed and, what is more serious, in a very hopeless state. If we take the Highlands as they were when this population was collected—and I am not going into any questions of facts—I am not going into any questions of a semi-literary character which are so much debated— but I state what nobody has ever denied, that the mountains, whenever there was pasture, were grazed by sheep, and especially by the black cattle that formed the wealth and sustenance of the people. Those cattle are now elsewhere—on the Northumberland moors, which are not a whit more fitted for grazing cattle than many of the Scottish hills, where they are in great numbers. They thrive well, and Northumbrians thrive very well by their means. But in the Highlands there are 2,000,000 of acres over which, as pasture, cattle used to graze, but which now are devoted entirely to the artificial maintenance of deer in a wild condition. Now, that is one cause, and the other cause is the consolidation into large sheep farms of the superior class of pastures which used to be grazed over by mixed sheep and cattle of the smaller owners. These small owners have been crushed into a corner, and are now in a very helpless condition, owing to the new uses to which the grazing ground of the Highlands have been put. This is an operation which has put a great, and, in some cases, an enormous increase of income into the pockets of the proprietors, and, of course, of the
      1308
      mass of the population, whom I am sure no people feel more deeply for and sympathize more with than the descendants of some of those very proprietors who in their day so greatly benefited by the change. The period during which the great uprooting of the crofters took place, and especially the time when they were deprived of their pastures wholesale, was between 1780 and 1820. That change was made for the sake of sheep walks. The devoting of the country to deer forests came later. It came at a time when tenants could be found to pay for turning into desert those tracts of the country, on account of the growth of the enormous wealth of the United Kingdom and of the United States of America. But of late years the sheep farms are not so profitable, and, indeed, in many cases are said to be of no profit at all, partly from the fall in the price of sheep and of wool, which may be called a fall of 30 and 40 per cent respectively, partly from the extremely complicated system of the valuation of flocks, which renders every successive large tenant less and less able to take over the flocks of his predecessor, and partly, it is stated— and this is an important fact—from the belief in the deterioration of ground on which sheep unmixed with cattle have grazed, and especially with sheep that cannot be wintered on these low grounds, which the crofters, to a very large extent, still occupy; and now the deer forests are spreading fast at the expense of the sheepwalks, and also, unfortunately, at the expense of the poor remains of the crofters' holdings. In old days the Highlands were very much, in a humble way, like what Switzerland and the Tyrol are now. People used to go up in summer to the higher lands—the younger members of the family, at all events—and there live a life of a very healthy kind both for mind and body, and this kind of life is admirably described in a pamphlet entitled The Crofter in History, published lately by one who is notoriously as little likely to be prejudiced against the present state of things in the Highlands as any man who lives. I speak of Lord Colin Campbell. The utter extinction of this life is the real grievance of the Highlands, and side by side with this grievance the crofters are conscious of this fact—that the land which they still hold is held under con-

      1309
      ditions resembling, not those of the rest of the Island, but resembling very closely those which obtained special legislation in Ireland. Their little holdings are not like the rest of the holdings in England and Scotland; they are not equipped by the landlord with all that makes them fit for habitation and for cultivation. The improvements in their holdings and in their houses are made by the crofters themselves; and there is nothing but a sense of duty and honour, which is very widely prevalent there—as among landlords, I believe, in all parts of this Island—there is nothing except the sense of duty or honour which can prevent a landlord from getting rid of a crofter by raising his rent to an impossible sum, or simply by evicting him, and so depriving him of all the money and all the labour he has put into the land. But though the great majority of landlords have behaved admirably of late years, there are very serious cases of landlords who have raised their rents to an enormous extent—in one case, it is believed, for the purpose of selling the estate for a higher purchase value— and there are other cases in which crofters have been turned out neck and crop in considerable numbers to please certain tenants of the deer forests—not purchasers of deer forests, but tenants who could not be satisfied without infinitely more land than any man can reasonably want for use. Therefore it was that the present Lord Advocate introduced, last year, a Bill, and admirably and fully explained it, which proposed to give the crofters fixity of tenure and the means of obtaining a fair rent. I shall not attempt to repeat—if I tried it I should only spoil it—the Lord Advocate's argument. It appeared to meet the approbation of the House. No one Member of the House, as I read Hansard, complained of the provisions of his Bill, except that there was a certain amount of complaint of their deficiencies. We now propose to renew those provisions, and to renew the proposal of giving the crofter compensation for permanent improvements, such as dwelling-houses, farm-offices, subsoil and drains, walls and fences, deep trenching, and clearing the ground in case of removal. We have fenced this by stating that these improvements must be suitable to the holding; but likewise the danger to the landlord is fenced round by the nature
      1310
      of the case, because there is no chance of the crofter making those sort of buildings that are extremely expensive, either for the purpose of amenity or speculation, which the landlords are naturally very much alarmed lest an enterprizing tenant should make and throw on their hands. These provisions we once more recommend to the House, and we propose they should be applied to the same area and the same population as we proposed before. We do not purpose to give, any more than last year, the right of free sale, and for this reason—that, as far as this Bill is concerned, from the first line to the last, we do not wish to give the crofter anything which he and his ancestors had not, and undoubtedly had not, in old days. The crofter, unlike the Irish tenant, never had by law or custom this power of selling his croft; and we regard it not for the present, still less for the future, advantage either of him or the district in which he lives that he should have it now. But fair rents and fixity of tenure by themselves will go a very long way towards meeting the claim of the crofters as recognized by Parliament. When Parliament passed a Resolution in favour of remedial measures, the Resolution, as far as I read it to the House, specially and pointedly referred to the Report of the Royal Commission, and the whole gist of the Report of the Royal Commission lies in the recommendation that the crofter shall have an extension of land. We sent out, at great expense to the country and at great inconvenience and sacrifice to themselves, a Commission of experienced and responsible gentlemen most representative of all interests—we sent them to the Highlands, and, of course, we may treat their Report as waste paper; but if we do not treat it thus we must find out some means to carry into practice its most vital recommendations. These recommendations are, first, that the holding of the crofter should in no case further be arbitrarily diminished; and, in the next place, that, under certain conditions, the holding should be considerably and compulsorily increased, and the method of that increase is very carefully and minutely pointed out. I will trouble the House to listen to a few passages from the Report of the Commission, which I shall condense as far as possible. These are the important recommendations—

      1311
      "The occupiers in an existing township should have the right to claim from the proprietor an enlargement of the existing townships in regard to arable land and common pasture in virtue of a resolution adopted by not less than two-thirds of the occupiers, and to record their claim with the Sheriff Clerk of the county in which the township is situated.
      "In case the proprietor should not, within the period of one year from the presentation of the claim, come to a voluntary settlement with the occupiers claiming enlargement, the Sheriff Substitute should investigate the grounds of the claim; and if he finds it to be well founded, he shall record the township as an over-crowded township, and the claim as a reasonable claim.
      "In this case the proprietor should be held liable to grant to the existing township an increase of arable ground, or hill pasture, or both, subject to the following conditions: —
      "The enlargement should only be claimed from lands contiguous to the existing townships, or contiguous to another township, or other townships contiguous to the first, which shall combine to make the claim for the benefit of all. The land claimed shall be in the occupancy either of the proprietor or his tenant.
      "No holding should be subject to diminution for enlargement of a township unless it exceeds a certain stipulated amount in annual agricultural value—say £100—without the voluntary assent of the proprietor. The aggregate value of the land assigned for the enlargement of a township or townships should not amount to more than one-third of the annual agricultural value of the holding from which it is taken when the annual value of the diminished holding is below £130; to more than one-half when the annual value is above £150, and below £300; and to more than two-thirds when the annual value of' the holding is above £300, without the voluntary assent of the proprietor."
      Then this is most important—
      "The enlargement awarded to an existing township shall not be used for the creation of a greater number of holdings than existed in the township previously, but only for the development, inprovement, and transfer of existing holdings."
      Then they go on to say—
      "In no case should the claim of the existing townships to enlargement extend to the acquisition of more land than would be sufficient to raise the average annual value of holdings in the townships to a specified sum—say £15— without the voluntary assent of the proprietor.
      "The claims of an existing township to an enlargement of area should not be allowed unless satisfactory proof be adduced before the Sheriff that the occupiers of the townships concerned are able to use the additional area of arable ground profitably, and can stock the additional area of hill pasture.
      "The rent of arable ground, and of common pasture assigned to an existing township by way of enlargement, should be paid by valuation, one valuer being nominated by the proprietor, and the other by the township, reserving to the Sheriff the power to nominate an oversman when the valuers fail to agree."
      1312
      The last essential recommendation is that in assigning land for the enlargement of an existing township there should be no infraction of an existing contract or lease without the free assent of the parties concerned; but in future such contracts or leases should be framed subject to the statutory claims of townships. The Commission then goes on to argue that, economically as well as socially, this would be to the advantage— very slightly indeed in any case to the pecuniary disadvantage—of the landlords, and ends by saying that in most cases—
      "Our proposal, translated into practice, would simply mean a moderate restoration of the hill pasture which the grandfathers of the existing hamlet enjoyed 60 years ago."
      Now, this is the idea of the Royal Commission, and the manner in which the practical recognition should be made of the right which the crofters once enjoyed. If the Commission had prepared such a measure as this with regard to extensive common grazing grounds for the Lothians, or for the Eastern Counties of England, it would have been a restitution in no sense, as they call it; it would have been an expropriation, pure and simple, in the case of these common grazing grounds; but, as applied to the parishes of the Highlands of Scotland, these parishes were, to use the words of this Bill—
      "There are at the commencement of this Act, or have been within 80 years prior thereto, holdings consisting of arable land, held with the right of pasturage in common with others."
      The proposal of the Commissioners is, if ever there was one, based on, and limited to, the special and local circumstances of the districts to which this Bill is intended to apply. Well, Sir, this proposal has been before the world for two years, and there is no sign of any great body of public opinion against it. Everybody— almost everybody—seems to agree that the crofters should have more land; but how is it to be carried out? The best mode of all would be by agreement between the landlord and the tenant, and that has been pointed to by the meeting of landlords, to which such frequent reference has been made; but, in order to bring this about in the case of all landlords, good and bad, there must be in the background some compulsion on the part of the State, and the real test of the virtue of a compulsory Bill is the extent to which it encourages and leads

      1313
      to voluntary agreements. Now, as regards such compulsion, the first method that occurs to people who have touched this question is that of compulsory sale to the State, which they shall proceed to let to the crofter; and the next is compulsory sale to the crofter, who should borrow money from the State, which ho is to repay by instalments. But I am bound to say that I, for one, do not feel justified in calling upon the general taxpayer to pay money or to risk his credit for the sake of a Highland population any more than for any other section of the population of any part of the United Kingdom. The proceedings which have placed the Highland crofter in his present position are not the work of the State. ["Hear, hear!" and "Oh!"] I do not agree with hon. Members who cry out. They were not done for the benefit of the State. The State may or may not have done wrong in permitting them, but they were individual acts done for individual profit. It would be just as hard to tax the labourer of Warwickshire in order to give common grazings to the crofter of Inverness-shire, as it would be to tax the crofter of Inverness-shire to establish compulsory allotments for the labourer of Warwickshire. Then we come to another matter which has been brought into a feasible and intelligible shape by the labours of the noble Marquess the Member for Sutherlandshire (the Marquess of Stafford) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson). The noble Lord proposes to give to the Local Authority the power of expropriating pieces of land which, in their judgment, it maybe of advantage to add to the holdings of the crofters, and to make advances to the crofters for the purpose of buying out the landlord or compelling him to sell from moneys raised on the security of the rates. That is a very inadequate description of the Bill of the noble Marquess, which is as carefully and ably elaborated as it is inspired by a great, humane, and broad spirit. It is very unfair to criticize the measure which the noble Marquess has not the opportunity of explaining and defending, so I will say nothing whatever about that Bill except in its praise, and I will state to the House, as a general argument, why we do not propose to call on the Local Authority, at any rate, at pre-
      1314
      sent. The existing Local Authorities in the North of Scotland seem to us entirely unsuited for the purpose, and the Local Authority of the future is still in the future, while the needs and the claims of the crofters are in the present, and the Resolution of Parliament by which we are bound is already 18 months old, The existing Local Authorities are the Commissioners of Supply, the Parochial Boards, and the School Boards. They are all Bodies constituted for special purposes, with funds appropriated to special purposes, and thoroughly unfitted for the duties which important and entensive land operations entail. The Commissioners of Supply, who are the nearest approach to a Local Authority for general purposes, are in the Highlands, roughly speaking, all landlords, and they deal with the assessment which is raised from landlords alone; and to ask them to pay for the carrying out of these operations, and to superintend the carrying out of these operations, would be a proposal the refutation of which does not require serious argument. The nature of the Body that will replace the Commissioners of Supply is still, as I say, hidden in the future; every hon. Member of the House knows quite as much as I do as to what it will ultimately be. In order to deal with this question we cannot wait for the reform of Local Government, and we are not prepared to rely on the existing Local Authorities, nor are we prepared to burden the rates, or the credit of the rates, with the financial operations of a system of compulsory purchase. Whatever may be done in other districts, we cannot take that course here. These Highland parishes have in many cases a very low valuation per head indeed. The rates are paid with extreme difficulty, with a difficulty which excites grave anxiety in the Board of Supervision and in the Education Department at Dover House. Now, there are Highland parishes in which the valuation per head is 16 s. 4d., 14 s. 2d., 19 s. 4d., £1 9s., and £1 10 s. In Skye the average valuation is, I suppose, about 50.s., and meanwhile the rates in two parishes in these parts amount, in one case, to 6s. 7d. in the pound, and in the other to 9s. 4d. in the pound. Well, in four Lowland rural parishes which I take at mere hazard, I find the valuation per head is respectively

      1315
      £11, £9, £14 and £10, and, obviously, an operation which can be discussed with regard to such rich parishes as these is beyond all discussion when we come to the poor parishes in the Highlands. There is no middle class, there is no general public there. The rates fall, either upon the landlord who is to be bought out, or upon the crofter for whose benefit the landlord is to be bought out, or upon other crofters who are more lucky than their follows. We cannot ask Parliament to still further burden these overburdened and not very highly-organized districts with a financial operation which it is quite beyond their power to deal with. Now, one course, and one only, remains, and that is to carry out the recommendations of the Commission in the manner in which, after reading and re-reading the Report with all the attention I can give, I am satisfied that the writer of those paragraphs must have had in mind. Those paragraphs point to compulsion, and they point to leasing; and, after thinking the matter over and over again, we have come to the conclusion that under strict conditions, and within strict limitations, compulsory leasing will alone meet the case of the crofters and settle the question in a manner that can be called a settlement. This is a Bill, as I said, founded strictly on the historical and local circumstances of a very peculiar district. We do not want to make the crofter a possessor or landed proprietor. He and his ancestors never have been landed proprietors or possessors; but they claim the right of grazing a certain number of sheep and cattle on the higher pastures on payment of a certain rent. Without that right neither he nor they could live, and we propose to put the genuine crofter, with a genuine holding, in possession of that right. The operation of the Bill is strictly confined to those parishes where that right existed within the lifetime of persons many of whom are still alive. In those parishes it shall be competent for an authority which I shall describe, to accept the application of a certain number of crofters who cannot obtain the right of grazing by agreement with their landlord, and arrange with them a right of common grazing on the payment of an adequate rent. We surround this operation with all the safeguards proposed by the Com-
      1316
      mission, by which the interests of the landlord and others are guarded, and the benefit of the crofter is strictly limited. I do not propose to repeat those safeguards to a House which has listened to me with such kind attention. I will simply ask the House to call them back by an effort of memory; but they are all inserted in the Bill. We propose, however, to apply one very important safeguard and limitation besides those applied by the Commissioners. The Commissioners proposed to apply compulsory powers to arable land; but we stop before that point. We propose to leave the crofter's potatoes, barley, and oats just where they are now, unless the landlord voluntarily enlarges his arable holding. Diminutions of separate crofts have undoubtedly occurred in too many instances; but the system has not been general and what I may call wholesale, like the deprivation of the grazing rights. Those grazing rights we feel bound to do our best to re-establish, and that is as far as we feel justified in going. Well, Sir, what are the authorities to whom these complicated and extremely onerous arrangements will be committed? In their Bill of last year, the Government placed the fixing of rent and the ascertaining of tenure in the hands of valuers. The noble Marquess the Member for Sutherlandshire (the Marquess of Stafford) proposes a Land Court which, roughly speaking, is, he will allow me to say, nothing more or less than the Sheriff. The Government is of opinion that the important administrative and executive powers which are created by this Bill could not be intrusted to a judicial officer appointed for general judicial purposes; and, indeed, highly as I rate the public spirit and industry of the Scottish Sheriffs, some of whom I am proud to know intimately, I doubt if they would or could be expected to undertake the duties imposed by the Bill in addition to their present duties. The mere number of the cases relating to tenure and rent would be great. In Ireland there are 500,000 tenants, and 125,000 fair rents have already been fixed, and there have been 85,000 agreements out of Court. In the Highland district to which this Bill refers there are about 40,000 holdings, and I should think that of these about 25,000 are held by crofters who would come under this Bill. On the Irish

      1317
      analogy it is probable that 6,000 fairs rents would have to be fixed, and that would be far too large to lay upon the Sheriffs. Now, we propose to institute a Commission of three members who may sit separately, thereby avoiding the greatest practical inconvenience of the Irish Courts. The Commissioners would call in valuers as assessors, in order to give them the advantage of local knowledge; but these valuers would not have a voice in the decisions. We have an earnest hope that, with so fair a tribunal in prospect, the landlords and tenants may in a great number of instances come to an agreement which will be satisfactory to both parties without going before the Commission, and the 5th clause of our Bill will give every facility for this spontaneous operation. We propose to appoint this authority for a limited time; and when the Local Authority is set up it will be well to consider whether the administrative duties should be transferred to it; but it is quite obvious that the fixing of rents cannot possibly be intrusted to an elective body, however constituted. I have carefully studied the speeches which were made in the last Parliament by the lion. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) and the other Members who took exception to what they thought the defects of the Bill of last year. There was complaint that no means had been taken to put a stop to the arbitrary extension of deer forests at the expense of what remains of the crofters' grazing grounds. Now, the best guarantee against that in most cases is the kindly and generous character of many—certainly of all those owners or occupiers of deer forests with whom I have the honour to be acquainted, who have spent enormous sums of money for the benefit of the population by whom they are surrounded. But all the tenants and owners of forests are not of the same character; and in some cases, undoubtedly, there have been very grave and cruel encroachments. But anyone who has followed my explanation will allow that in this Bill no such provision is necessary. When an effective tribunal exists which is to give compensation for rights taken away in old days, I think we shall have heard the last of those "pet lamb" cases which have been the scandal of the Highlands of late years. But, undoubt-
      1318
      edly, the present condition of these forests, which are in some cases the greatest abuse that ever was perpetrated under the name of authority or law, has largely necessitated the legislation which we now have before us. I speak as a sportsman—not a very skilful one, perhaps, but certainly as keen a one as any man in the House of my years—and I am bound to say that the selfish absorption by one man of all the pleasure, all the happiness, all the advantage which is to be got out of seven deer forests, covering a space of at least 135,000 acres—and I think I have understated the fact—with all the degradation and humiliation of his small neighbours, and the humiliation of the servants whom he omploys—and I am speaking of a particular man — excites in me feelings which I certainly very much prefer not to express in words, but to embody in the proposals of legislation which I now lay before the House. It is not as if I was asking the House to set up an ideal state of society. Those who have seen the village of Garth, in Glen Lyon, which is the property of an hon. Member of this House, and which is the old Highland state of society, with the hillside above, the valley of green land below, with not a stone loose upon it, and the cattle and sheep grazing up to the sky-line as far as they can be seen from the holdings, and above those holdings a ground where you can shoot 20 brace of grouse a-day as a minimum, following them with dogs —those who have seen this may justly compare it with the most beautiful objects that one sees in the valleys of the Oberland in Switzerland. And if they compared this scene with those vast tracts in Inverness-shire and Boss-shire, with its population of hired gillies, on which no tourist, no shepherd, no Revenue officer, can set foot, they might well ask whether legislation comes one hour too soon to save the most beautiful part of our Highlands from desolation and demoralization. With regard to the interest of the landlord I wish to say one word. One great cause of the failure of the sheep walks is that it is almost impossible satisfactorily to graze the land in summer unless you have the wintering below. Well, that wintering below belongs to a very great extent to the crofters already, and evidently cannot now be taken from them, and land-

      1319
      lords are beginning to see that it is for their interest that the same people who have the wintering below should have the summer pastures above. The noble Marquess the Member for Sutherlandshire (the Marquess of Stafford) mentions the rating of deer forests and grouse grounds in the hands of owners, and he likewise proposes to make deer ground game, so that the crofter may shoot them when he finds them on his arable land. I do not want to argue those questions now. We have not introduced them into our Bill, because we wish to make our Bill strictly applicable only to the crofter parishes, and not to introduce into it any measure of general application. And now I should like to say one word as to the other recommendations of the Commissioners, and as to the way in which they have been met both by the late Government and by the present Government. In those districts to which the population, from no fault of theirs, have been pushed, it is by fishing, and by fishing alone, that the best friends of the Highlander know that he can be made a man of, and to make fishing profitable an improvement of communication, postal and telegraphic, is quite essential. The Commissioners say—
      "The defects of the mail service are most apparent in North Uist, Benbecula, South Uist, and Barra."
      In order to remedy some of these defects, the following arrangements have been sanctioned by the Postmaster General as from the 1st of March:—A mail packet service will be established from Oban to Coll, Tiree, Lochboisdale, and Castlebay; the packet will make three trips a-week, and will leave Oban at 1.15 p.m. (after the arrival of the London night mail), from May 15th to August 31st, and at 7.30 a.m. during the remainder of the year. Should the Company for trading purposes hereafter extend the voyages of the packet to Lochmaddy, the Department will have the right of forwarding mails to and from that port. In regard to telegraphic extension, the Commissioners recommended that a wire should be carried at once to Castlebay, Sutherland, Lewis, Shetland, and South Ronaldshay, in Orkney. Since this recommendation telegraphic communication has been extended to Castlebay, Barra; St. Mary's, Barra; St. Margaret's Hope, Orkney; Reaywick and Vaila Sound, Shetland. As it is impos-
      1320
      sible to obtain the ordinary guarantees from these poor localities, the Treasury give a special grant in aid of £500 for a period of two or three years, in order to enable the Post Office to complete this important and necessary work, in addition to the annual sum of £1,000 provided in the Fishery Board Estimates out of the surplus herring brand fees. In illustration of the usefulness of this telegraphic communication, the Fishery Board mentioned in their last Report that the fishermen of the South Isles, where no fishing was going on, got information by telegram that herrings had appeared in the North Isles, and, proceeding there, landed in one week £1,800 worth of fish. Without the telegraph this fish would not have been got. Likewise, for the purposes of scientific investigation by the Fishery Board, the Treasury have given during the last two years the sum of £1,500; and this year they have given £2,000, to include experiments as to beam trawling for the benefit of the fishermen. Now, there is one form of assistance to a fisherman which is preferable to any other, and when we are in Committee we shall be ready to consider it carefully. Everyone who has been connected with Scotland, knows that there are many ways in which public money may be given and lent, which brings no benefit either to him who gives or to him who receives. I learned very much in Ireland; and the pleasantest lesson which I learned was that the small loans to the honest and experienced fishermen are better paid than any other of any sort or kind, and do more good to those to whom they are lent. While I was there I was able, with the assistance of the Irish Members, and especially of one hon. Member whom I am glad to see back in the last day or two—the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlow (Mr. Blake)—to put these funds in a more accessible shape. The Irish Reproductive Loan Fund and the Sea Fisheries Fund served between them all the maritime counties of Ireland, with a capital of not more than £70,000 or £80,000. The money is lent on short terms for the purchase of good boats and the equipment of nets. The amount of good done is enormous, and the arrears outstanding are quite insignificant. If the fishermen of the Western Isles and Coast had access to such a fund, they

      1321
      would not see the fish taken before their very eyes by people from a distance. I should have liked to have supported my observations with a statement of what has been done by the attentive and judicious benevolence of Sir Reginald and Lady Cathcart in the Highlands, in which they own property, which is a most remarkable proof of the enormous benefit which judiciously disposed loans will do to bold, enter-prizing and industrious fishermen. Well, when we get into Committee, the Government would like to discuss and would be glad to see their way to placing, under the charge of the Fishery Board, under certain conditions, a fund, it may be small, resembling closely those funds which have succeeded so well in Ireland, and which will enable the fishermen of the West to utilize the best source of wealth which their region offers. And now, Sir, the House is in possession of the proposals of the Government as far as I am competent to explain them, and I am only doubtful in what direction I should appeal in order to recommend them to hon. Members. If I apologize for them as too sweeping, I know there are many Members who will say they do not go far enough, and if I claim that they are the very utmost we can be expected to give, I shall be told by others they go a great deal too far. I do not apologize for them. They are not intended to be a political compromise. They are presented to the House as proposals which, according to our earnest and humble conviction, are right in themselves, and which, if accepted all round in the spirit in which they are offered, will settle, and ought to settle, a burning question. I think that the more hon. Members examine all the alternative proposals the more they will admit that none of the alternatives are really worth adopting. There are other schemes which look better on paper and sound better in speech; but I believe this, and this alone, will work, unless Parliament is prepared— which I hope it is not—to buy up this district of the Highlands out of the taxes, and divide it amongst the masses of the Western Highlands. We have adopted the spirit, and almost the letter, of the plans and recommendations of the Royal Commission, a Commission which was appointed at the instance of Parliament; and we have put those
      1322
      plans into a shape in which alone, as we maintain, they can by any possibility be brought into practical operation. The Commissioners say—
      "The land agitation of the Highlands is not likely to pass away without some adjustment of the claims of occupiers acceptable to the greater number who are not yet possessed with extravagant expectations."
      And their opinion is amply confirmed by the police and the official Reports, which it is frequently my duty very carefully to read. Such an adjustment, in our opinion, we offer to the House; and as a Minister who, by dear-bought experience, knows the nature and the symptoms and the conditions and the consequences of agrarian agitation, and who has now command of exceptional sources of information about the social condition, present and prospective, of the Western Highlands, I solemnly warn and intreat hon. Members not to reject our Bill without very careful consideration. On my responsibility as Minister for Scotland, a very different responsibility from what I was aware of when I took that post—though that only makes the post more acceptable in my eyes—I ask the House to approach this measure in the belief that when they have given it a calm and thorough consideration they will discover it to be a just measure, a practical measure, and, what is almost as important, a measure not ore whit stronger than is necessary to effect the objects which we have all so long had in common.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to the tenure of Land by Crofters in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and for other purposes relating thereto."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
      MR. MACFARLANE: Mr. Speaker, I have, in common with all other Members of the House, listened with the greatest interest to the able and lucid speech just made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Trevelyan). In the concluding words of his speech he begged hon. Members who are interested in this question not to reject the Bill without serious consideration. I can assure him that I, for one, will not reject any Bill, however, small, without very serious consideration. It is neither usual, nor is it desirable, that on the stage of the introduction of a Bill there should be any-

      1323
      thing like minute criticism of its provisions. I rise only for the purpose of saying that while I am able to express some satisfaction, I am sorry I am also obliged to express extreme disappointment at the measure proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman has tried to draw a distinction between the position of these poor tenants in Scotland and the poor tenants in Ireland. Now, I am not able to recognize any distinction except in favour of the case of the Scottish tenants. If there is a difference it is a difference in favour of the rights of the tenants of Scotland. I am sorry to see the right hon. Gentleman proposes to adopt the proposal of last year to confine the operation of the Bill to what he is pleased to call certain crofting parishes in the Highlands of Scotland. This is, to me, patchwork legislation. First of all, certain parishes are to be selected, and the Land Act is to apply to them and to no other parishes. It is not my duty to speak on behalf of the Lowland districts of Scotland—they have Representatives of their own; but I can see no reason in the world why an Act which is to apply to Argyllshire, Inverness-shire, and Ross-shire should not be equally applicable to Aberdeenshire, Ayrshire, and Perthshire; indeed, to the whole of Scotland. But it is for the hon. Gentlemen who represent these constituencies to press their claims to be included in the Act. I understand there are more of the class of population commonly called crofters in Aberdeenshire than even in Inverness-shire; but, as the right hon. Gentleman has stated, he proposes to limit the operation of the Bill to the counties enumerated in the Schedule of the Bill of last year. In that Bill Aberdeenshire, Ayrshire, and Perthshire were omitted. Let hon. Members who represent those constituencies bring their case forward when the Bill gets into Committee. Special reference has been made to deer forests, and the right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to show that it was by the operation of natural laws, over which human beings have no control, that the Highlands had been brought into the condition in which they are now. I deny that proposition, and maintain that it is by the action of wicked human laws that the Highlands of Scotland have been brought to that condition. The right hon. Gentleman
      1324
      says that the general taxpayer is not responsible; but I say that the taxpayer is a continuing quantity, and that he is responsible; so that if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to put his hand in his pocket I shall support him. I am glad to hear that he is so careful of the fishing population of the Highlands. Why is he not so for those who work on the land? Assistance is as essential for them as it is for the poor tenants of Ireland; and, although there are points of difference, I deny that there is any just distinction to be made between the claims of the two. I am glad, however, that something is being proposed; but I wish it was a more thorough and complete measure, for I assure the right hon. Gentleman, with the deepest regret, that I am perfectly certain that the measure he has proposed, passed even in its integrity through this House and "another place," will not satisfy the Scottish people nor settle this question.
      MR. RAMSAY: I am sorry that the first duty of the Secretary for Scotland has been to introduce a Bill which, so far as the distressed districts of Scotland are concerned, must prove illusive. It contains no provision fitted to alleviate the distress of the population in those districts, and that they are deeply distressed no one knows better than I do. That the right hon. Gentleman should have made no provision for removing part of the people from the congested districts, nor any suggestion as to how their distress can be alleviated, constitutes, in my opinion, a very grave defect in the proposal now made to the House. The right hon. Gentleman cannot be expected to be intimately acquainted with these districts. But I have been long acquainted with them; I am an owner of land within the area affected by this measure. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the fact that grazing lands were held in common in the Highlands. But I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, that if he has leisure to investigate that question farther, he will find that there was not a county of Scotland in which, at the beginning of the present century, grazing lands were not held in common by several tenants as they are now in the Highlands. I think provision should be made in the Bill for the alleviation of distress in places where the population has largely increased

      1325
      beyond the means of subsistence, and where no new industry has been introduced. It is in those districts where the distress prevails. The population of Lows is 25,500 at the present time, and the whole net agricultural rental does not amount to more than £10,000, or about £2 per family, amongst about 5,000 families. If I am correct in this—and I challenge any man who knows the district to say I am not—I say it is impossible that there can be anything like comfort for the population on that area. I do not wish to take up the time of the House now. We shall have an opportunity of discussing the Bill in detail when we get it into Committee, and I shall then bring under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman suggestions, which I shall make as Amendments, for the relief of the distress which prevails among the people of Long Island and Skye. The condition of the people there is deserving of earnest consideration, because they lie under peculiar difficulties produced by their exclusive knowledge of the Gaelic language—difficulties of a kind which no man who has not been among them can form any accurate opinion. I have great respect for the Gentlemen who now constitute Her Majesty's Ministry; but I know not one among them who has any knowledge of these districts, or any knowledge of the condition of agriculture there, or who has over been practically acquainted with them. I think, therefore, my right hon. Friend the Secretary for (Scotland is under a great disadvantage in having to deal with this question; and if my right hon. Friend has been guided by information in this matter, I feel that he has obtained it from tainted sources, and legislation upon that foundation cannot be of service.
      SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: Sir, I have listened with great attention to the speech in which my right hon. Friend introduced this measure—a measure which, so far as concerns the people of Scotland and the Members of this House who have undertaken to represent them, is second in importance to no measure which it is probable will occupy the consideration of the present Parliament. Sir, I do not wish to enter into any criticism of the Bill, which I have not yet had an opportunity of examining. I have said that I listened with great
      1326
      interest to the speech of my right hon. Friend, with a great deal of which, especially the closing part of it, I most heartily concur. I most heartily concur with my right hon. Friend in the opinion which he indicated rather than expressed, that the rights of property were more in danger from those who abused than from those who attacked them. I have regretted as much as anyone can possibly regret the course which has been pursued by some so-called sportsmen in my native land. They have assumed to themselves the title of sportsmen; but I think the more appropriate description of them would be that of game dealers. They descend even a little lower in the social scale than that, because, if all the tales are true of the dark deeds perpetrated in some of the Islands, they have descended to the level of butchers. As I said, I intend no criticism of this measure to-night; but as my right hon. Friend has founded his arguments in support of the Bill almost exclusively upon the recommendations of the Royal Commission—and I agree with him that it would be most unfortunate if those recommendations were not followed speedily by legislation—I should like to ask him why he omitted from his speech all reference to one of the recommendations upon which the Commissioners laid especial stress— I mean to that remedial proposal which is contained in their Report for dealing with those districts where the population has for some time past exceeded the means of support? In the matter of emigration the Commissioners speak in no dubious terms; they refer, of course, to the unwillingness of the crofter to emigrate—and, Sir, attachment to one's home and native land is always creditable to the people of a country—but from the time when our common father, Adam, left the Garden of Eden, in obedience to behests which had to be obeyed, emigration has been the lot of man. The Commissioners say that however much they may deplore the necessity which compels from time to time portions of the population of a country to leave that country, still they recognize that it is inevitable, and a law which must be obeyed. At the same time, the Commissioners said that they recognized that emigration was a hardship, and that it is not resorted to without compulsion. But we must also take

      1327
      this into account. They say that they are—
      "Inclined to think that the prevailing land agitation has not been without considerable influence in prompting the expressed dislike to emigration, and they hope that when overpopulation is clearly shown under any distribution of land that can take place, and when they are satisfied that those who remain at home will he cared for, the aversion to emigration will disappear."
      The Commissioners dwell upon this question at considerable length, and they conclude their recommendation as to emigration by saying that they believe that emigration, properly conducted, is an indispensable remedy for the condition of some parts of the Highlands and Islands; and they strongly recommend that, in connection with any measures which may be framed for improving the condition of the crofters and cottars, such provision should be made as they have indicated for assisting emigration, both by State advances and by State direction. Well, Sir, when we have a recommendation couched in such very strong and clear terms, it is somewhat puzzling to know why no reference to this portion of the Report is made in the speech of my right hon. Friend. When we consider that there are large portions of our Colonies which are crying out for population—Colonies whose Governments are willing to give every facility, pecuniary and otherwise, to Colonists, why is it that we insist on the remaining at home, to their own detriment, of the surplus population? We have by our adoption of an unrestricted system of Free Trade—and that is a question upon which I am very far from wishing to enter at present—brought to bear upon the population of this country, who depend upon agriculture, conditions which are very different indeed from those in which agriculture was first adopted in these regions; and when the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland avows that his case is based, first upon the Report of the Royal Commission, and next upon the history, nay, almost upon the archaeology, of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, I want to know why it is that these conditions are left entirely out of sight—the new conditions and the keen competition to which agriculture is exposed, and the recommendations which are contained with reference to emigration in the Report of the Royal Com-
      1328
      mission? I will not ask the House to listen to any further remarks of mine upon this subject to-night; but I trust that it will not be lost sight of, in the consideration of this question, that emigration, not necessarily State-aided, but State-directed emigration, has presented itself to those who performed the duty of examining this great and pressing question, as one of the most ready, one of the most beneficial, and one of the most accessible means of relief to a population distressed by no fault of their own.
      DR. CAMERON: Sir, I shall not occupy the attention of the House for more than a few minutes with the few observations I have to make. I must say, after listening to the speech of the Secretary for Scotland, that if my right hon. Friend is under the impression that the measure he proposes will be a settlement of this question for all eternity, or even for a few years, I think he is much mistaken. I think we who are interested in seeing justice done in this matter should take all we can get; but as to regarding the Bill as a settlement, that, I think, is altogether illusory. In the first place, I should like to know whether my right hon. Friend does not intend to do something to prevent the further appropriation of commons in Shetland? There is no reference in the Bill to that subject, although it is dealt with in the Report of the Commissioners. Then with regard to deer forests. I listened with great pleasure to the remarks of my right hon. Friend; but it appears to me both disappointing and illogical that both my right hon. Friend and the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir William Harcourt) should last year have denounced the evil, and now take no steps to remedy it. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the conduct of certain proprietors with regard to deer forests. I do not know whether it was owing to a slip, but I hope so, that he omitted to tell the House what legislative measures are to be taken to deal with that subject; but I trust that he intends to take some steps, and not merely to allow his indignation to evaporate in empty words. Is it proposed that nothing shall be done for the crofters so far as arable land is concerned? If you leave them in their present condition, they are liable to evictions, and in that case they have no means of keep-

      1329
      ing themselves. I should like to have some information on that point, as also upon others of great importance. I ask my right hon. Friend what is intended to he done about the right to notice, and in the matter of arrears? And I point out that the whole of the subjects have been fully touched upon in the Report of the Royal Commissioners. Then, again, there is the case of the cottars. The Report contains a number of suggestions for the benefit of the cottars, and I have not heard throughout the whole of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that one suggestion for their benefit has been adopted. Sir, I imagine that the discontent in the Highlands can never be removed until the case of the cottars is, to some extent, grappled with in the same way as that of the crofters. Then there is another matter quite within the scope of the Bill, and which seems to have received no attention—that is the improvement of communications. The Report of the Commission contained numerous references to instances in which crofters are compelled to pay high rates for the maintenance of roads, when they live, perhaps, 20 miles from the roads. This, I say, is a point which, in any Bill entitled to be regarded as an efficient measure, must be dealt with. Then I must remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman has told us nothing about the right to heather, sea-ware, and things of that sort, which are required by the people of these districts. I should be very glad also if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) will give us some information as to when it is proposed to go on with the second reading of the Bill. Of course, we shall have Notice of that; but, at the same time, I would say that our experience is not favourable to the postponement of the second reading stage of such Bills; and, therefore, I trust that the period of delay which will elapse before the second reading is taken will not be so long as to jeopardize the tardy instalment of relief which the Bill offers, and which, in a very much improved and extended form, we hope soon to see on the Statute Book.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Sir, I am sure that all hon. Members have listened with great interest to the sympathetic terms in which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland
      1330
      described the great evil with which he proposed to cope in the measure now before the House. I also acknowledge the great difficulties which surround this question, and the very great difficulty of dealing with it. At the same time, I am compelled to express my opinion, in common with other hon. Members who have spoken on the question, that the remedies suggested in the Bill are hedged around with so many limitations that I fear that it will have comparatively little effect. But, Sir, I will not go into details at the present moment. There is only one question to which I will refer. I gather from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that it is not proposed that any public money should be given in order to remedy the great evils which he has depicted. The right hon. Gentleman says there is no more reason why public money should be given to the Highlands of Scotland than to any other parts of the United Kingdom. I am under the impression, however, that large sums of money have been given in aid of various parts of the country; and it seems to me that schemes are in the air in connection with which, so it is said, large sums of money are to be asked for for the purpose of getting over difficulties in Ireland. I am not one of those who have tried to press upon Her Majesty's Government that they should make new demands upon the taxpayers of the country; and I will only say now that if we are to be called upon to assist the tenants in Ireland out of the public funds, it should be borne in mind that the people in the Highlands of Scotland are in no less need of assistance, and that I hope their claim in this respect will have the attention of Her Majesty's Government.
      DR. CLARK: Sir, I desire to express my thanks for the tone of sympathy in which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland has spoken with regard to the crofter population. I think that the principles which underlie the Bill will solve the land questions, if they are carried out as they ought to be. The Bill contains all the principles which those who agree with me desire to see carried out. If we get a fair rent fixed by a competent tribunal, we shall be satisfied so far as that question is concerned. If we can secure a durable tenure, compensation to tenants for improvements, and more land for the people

      1331
      —if all these principles are fairly carried out, then I say that this measure will go a long way to solve the Highland difficulty. But I do not think that the Bill goes far enough in its provisions to carry out these principles. The restrictions it places on the action of the crofter are very unwise; they will even prevent him improving his dwelling-house. What the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Trevelyan) ought to do is to stimulate the crofters to improve their homes by erecting new dwellings, and induce them to give up their old black houses in favour of more modern white ones. Every inducement ought to be given the crofters to improve their dwellings. This is a very important question; and although I do not intend to take up the time of the House tonight, I desire to give an idea of the way in which the present system works. I was in the Island of Arran four years ago, and I lived with a crofter who had torn down his black house and erected a comfortable white building with windows in it. He had a lease from the landlord, who was a certain noble Duke, and while I was there his lease expired and his rent was raised from £18 to £80 a-year, which was the result of his having improved his house. Fortunately, however, the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) has a paper which is very largely circulated in the district I refer to, and its influence prevented the full raising of the rent from being carried into effect. I am sure, however, that the poor man would not have been able to get £18 out of his croft that year, for the deer of the noble Duke, his landlord, had come down and eaten nearly all his crops. I have said that there are four principles in this Bill which will go far to solve this question; but we expected the provisions of the Bill to have gone much further than we have had explained tonight. The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) told his constituents during the Election that the next Crofters' Bill would be a much more Radical measure than that introduced last year; but it is simply the old Bill over again, plus the compulsory leasing of pasture land. The right hon. Gentleman—one of the Members from Birmingham—(Mr. J. Chamberlain) also told us that this Bill would be much more drastic than the old one; but I do not see that it is more drastic.
      1332
      The other measure was drastic enough if it had been carried through logically; and the Scotch crofters will not be satisfied with less than has been given to the Irish cottiers. If the Government is not prepared to give an increase of arable land as well as pasture land, there is no use in dealing with the question at all. The "three F.'s" will not settle it; even to give the crofters their present holdings free from both rents and taxes— even then they will not solve this Highland question. The crofters have not forgotten their rights, as the farmers of England and of the Lothians have done; but they believe that they have been defrauded of their rights, and they will not be satisfied until they have regained them. I must say that I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the sympathy which he has expressed towards these poor crofters; but I am bound to say, also, that what he has given with one hand he has taken away with the other, and that is a proceeding which the hard-headed crofter will be well able to see through, and will refuse to accept as a settlement.
      MR. H. G. REID: I should not have ventured at this late hour to detain the House if it had not been for the challenge thrown out by an hon. Member, who said that no one personally acquainted with the facts could accept the statements of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan), and insinuated that his statements were based on information received from tainted sources, and on superficial observation. Allow me, as representing a great industrial constituency in the Midlands, and as one who has risen from the ranks of the Scottish crofters, to repudiate these insinuations. From early and bitter experience I can testify to the deplorable condition of the crofters, and the imperative need that exists for finding a speedy remedy. The speech to which we have listened in support of the proposed Bill will send a thrill of joy through the hearts of thousands in Scotland—more, perhaps, from the spirit it evinces and the hopes it inspires than from the specific remedies suggested. I do not undervalue these remedies. They go very far in the right direction, and it may be possible to give them at a future stage a wider scope. The Royal Commission, to which reference has been made, admitted that

      1333
      in the North of Scotland an "economic crisis" has been reached. The time has come when the grievances must be dealt with in a thorough and practical form. They are the up growth of generations of misgovernment and oppression. I shall not go so far back as an hon. Gentleman opposite, and begin with our venerable ancestor, Adam; but, were this the time or occasion, I could tell how my ancestors, like thousands more, were within the past generation driven from their homes; how, when returning from church or from market, they found their dwellings unroofed and their bedding in flames; how they were driven out to people and make prosperous Upper Canada and other distant domains. Someone whispers that their leaving was for their own good. ["Hear, hear!"] I readily admit that the change was for their own good, and for the good of their adopted country; but that is certainly no excuse for the system under which they were expatriated, to the serious detriment of their native land. And as to the complaint uttered by an hon. Member opposite, that the crofters are reluctant to emigrate, lot me just ash—Who peopled Upper Canada? I regret that the Government Bill is not more comprehensible in its scope, and that the discussion seems to imply that the only people who are suffering in Scotland are the Highland crofters. I am intimately acquainted with the Lowlands, and, if time permitted, I could show that the suffering there is equally severe, and in some respects more harassing and hopeless than in the Highlands. The small holders in the Lowlands are, for the most part, under 19 years' leases. During past years rents have been increased, and to-day there are multitudes being subjected to a process of eviction as cruel and exacting as that which exists in the Highlands. Behind with the rents, which they are unable to pay, their stock and furniture are being sold off, and they themselves reduced to the point of starvation, whilst remorselessly bound by the terms of their leases. Something, I trust, will yet be done for them—something to rescue an industrious and honest and long-suffering race from the worst form of extermination. Let us, then, accept the proposals of the Government in the generous spirit in which they are made.
      1334
      They assert and embody the fundamental principle that justice must be done to this class—that fixity of tenure, fairly-adjusted rents, compensation for improvements, and extended holdings, shall be conceded; and when the Bill comes before us, let us wisely and firmly try to amend and extend it, so as to render it as largely beneficial as possible.
      DR. R. M'DONALD: Like the rest of my hon. Friends, I am very pleased that the Bill goes so far—that is, if the principles it contains are carried out to their logical conclusion, which is not the case at present. In my opinion, half-a-loaf is better than no bread; and, therefore, I am prepared to accept the measure which the right hon. Gentleman has introduced; but I hope it will be extended to some extent in Committee. We have been asked why was emigration not going on? Well, we know that it has been the policy of the landlords for some time past to emigrate the people away from the Highlands. We know that the landlords feel that the only way to make the Highlands pay is by turning them into deer forests and clearing the crofters away altogether; but I hope that we shall hear nothing-more of that now. As a matter of fact, the Highlands are very thinly populated at present, and it will be time to talk about emigration when we have properly populated them. There is one point in the Bill which I am pleased to see, and that is that we are not going to have the land bought up from the landlords; and I hope that we shall never see anything more of that sort, and that the same principle will be applied to the Sister Isle. We have a right to make them let the land at a reasonable rent; but we have no right to make them sell out, and purchase their property out of the rates of our country. There is one other matter to which I should like to call attention, and which I consider to be one of the great blots on the Bill, and that is the question of arable land. The right hon. Gentleman said that it is not necessary to put a provision in the Bill to extend the arable land which the crofters had, because they had it all already; but I beg to challenge that statement, because it is well known that the arable land is mostly in the hands of the large farmers. What is the good, therefore, of

      1335
      giving the crofters a bare hill side? Unless we give the crofters the power of enlarging their one or two acres of arable land, no good whatever will be done. That, in my mind, is the greatest point in connection with the Bill. And why should we not extend the power of acquiring arable land? Why carry out a principle in regard to one sort of land and not another? I hope that this matter will be reconsidered; and I hope that no one knowing the Highlands will say again that the crofters already hold the greater portion of the arable land. Whenever we see good arable land in the Highlands we find that it is mostly in the possession of the large farmers; and unless means are taken to increase that in the possession of the small crofters, the Bill will not go as far as it should do. We have been told, also, that gentlemen having deer forests spend a large amount of money among the people. Well, tliat is all very well; but we who know the Highland mountains know that that is not so. When they do spend money they spend it for their own purposes, and amongst their own people, who are amongst the most demoralized portion of the whole of our Highland population. I am very pleased also that there are no proposals in the Bill in regard to game, because I think that every man ought to have the right to shoot what game he can. I am glad, moreover, to see the provisions as to fishing; but there is another point in connection with fishing which the Government must consider, and that is with reference to the construction of suitable harbours. The crofters must have more piers and harbours, or they cannot carry on the fishing industry satisfactorily. At present they cannot use large boats, because they cannot get them up out of the sea; and in bad weather they can do nothing with the small boats at their disposal, because there is every chance of their getting drowned. Another point is this—that the Government should make some provision for giving these people money to enable them to stock their farms, for what is the good of giving them land if they have no stock to put on it? The Government lend money to promote the fisheries industry, but they do not do so to promote the better cultivation of the land; and I think this is a point which might well be considered at some future period.
      SIR DONALD CURRIE: I think that the scope of the Bill might very well be extended to other parts of Scotland, and I hope, at least, that the right hon. Gentleman will consent to make its provisions embrace Perthshire.
      MR. PICTON: There is only one point which I should like to call attention to; but I cannot help expressing my pleasure at hearing the words of sympathy which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan) spoke in regard to the crofters. I could not help wishing, when I heard him express his indignation in regard to deer forests, that the provisions of the Bill came up to the right hon. Gentleman's indignation. The point to which I desire to call attention, however, is the possibility, or more than possibility, of extensive evictions. Nothing has been said as to the intention of the Government in regard to the grievance which may arise on this score. Possibly the matter does not properly arise on this Bill, yet it may be that this Bill will do incalculable mischief. It must certainly tend to increase the evictions, because, in view of its passing, the landlords may endeavour to get rid of what they will call a troublesome class as soon as possible.
      DR. FARQUHARSON: I wish to extend the right hand of fellowship to the very excellent measure which has just been brought in, which I think carries out many of the best principles of agricultural legislation. I think, however, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Trevelyan) should give a favourable ear to the Bill which some of my hon. Friends are going to bring in, which meets a great many of those points which have been mentioned by hon. Members in this discussion. In regard to what has fallen from my hon. Friend, who pointed out that the Bill might be made to apply very much more widely than it did, I wish to point out that in Aberdeenshire, which I represent, there are a great many small holdings, and I hope that the provisions of the Bill will be extended to that county.
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): In reply to the question which has been put to me by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) as to whether the Bill will apply to Shetland or not, I have to say that that will depend upon whether the crofters' rights

      1337
      of grazing there will be covered by the Bill. I do not know the particulars of that case; but my hon. Friend can draw his own conclusion from what I have said. In regard to arable land, it appears to us that there would be great difficulty in allowing extensions of arable land in one part of the country and not in others. The reason of our dealing with pasture land is that the deprivation of pasture has been a serious inconvenience to the crofters, because they have not been able to keep cattle or sheep; but now they will be in a position to do so. But that matter has been fully explained by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Trevelyan). With regard to the question of notice, that matter has not escaped the attention of the Government, and we have, in Clause 3 of the Bill, given a greater length of time during which the arrears are not to constitute a ground of removal from the farm. The provisions as to security of tenure will apply to tenants of arable land as well as to tenants of other kinds of land. The question of arrears, of course, raises an enormous question, and I do not think the Crofters' Commission have suggested any legislation on that point. With regard to the cottar, we propose to deal with him very much in the same way as in the Bill of last year. I have had very many cases of hardship brought under my notice in some of the Highlands, of the people being obliged to pay a road rate, when in some cases there is nothing in the nature of a road within three miles of their holdings; but I am afraid that that question does not come within the scope of this Bill. It is an incidental question which really falls under the heading of road administration. There are no advantages derived by any resident from a main road such as there are from such roads as a rate will enable to be made. Still, a person who is made to pay without any advantage from the rate will feel the hardship. With regard to sea-ware, no doubt there are some provisions or recommendations it is difficult to work out by legislation; but I should hope, as time passes, that there will be fair tolerance on the part of proprietors to allow sea-ware to be used. Another point was referred to by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), who said there was no provision for fisheries. There is pro-
      1338
      vision for certain money being devoted to fisheries, and all who have studied this question look to that as one of the greatest sources of amelioration for the crofter population. Then the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) rather lamented that there was no adequate inducement to the crofter to give up his bad house and build a better. Well, we think we have given a very material inducement on that question, because we have provided, in a scheme much more liberal than the Agricultural Holdings Act, that a crofter, when he removes, shall be entitled to fair compensation for what he has built on his holding, always subject to the reasonable provision that it shall be suitable to the holding. I do not think he is likely to be too extravagant in this matter. When we propose to provide here that without any antecedent notice to the landlord, or subsequent consent, there shall be fair compensation given, that does seem the most practical inducement that you can give to any man to build the best kind of house that his money will enable him to build. I have no doubt that that will prove a great amelioration of the character of the dwellings inhabited by this class of the population. Something was said about comparison with the Irish Land Act; but I would point out that there are some things which will be given by this Bill which have never been given in Ireland. The tenure will be a more enduring one, and the provision for enlargement of pasture is more extensive than anything which has ever been suggested for Ireland. Something was said about allotments, by way of reference to the cottage provisions of the recent Irish legislation; but it must be borne in mind that these were only provisions to give half-acres as adjoining a house. There was no provision for making farms for anyone; therefore, it will be found, on reflection, that there has been no want of regard to small interests in Scotland as compared with Ireland. One remark was made in regard to harbours. I am quite sure that all who know the Islands will be desirous of seeing better harbours made in numerous places, because it is generally known that one of the great difficulties of prosecuting fishing successfully is that the existing harbours cannot be used by the boats on account of insufficient depth of water. The

      1339
      boats have to be drawn up on the beach, and, of course, a boat that can be used in that way is not one that can withstand rough weather and proceed with safety to the more distant fishing grounds. The Piers and Harbours Committee, on the testimony they received, thought that money should not be spent by way of advance for harbours that are of mere local importance—that unless they are of national importance advances should not be made. No doubt, however, there are provisions by which it is possible to obtain loans for these local harbours; but then, of course, the main difficulty in many of the Islands and Highlands would be to find persons to take on themselves the liability for the expenditure. That matter, however, has not been overlooked, because within the last few years we have made some provision under which one harbour at least has been made, the surplus of the herring fishing brand fees having been taken in towards the expense. I should rejoice if any other funds were put at the disposal of those concerned in this matter in Scotland. I do not think at present it is possible to do any more than take these herring brand fees; there has not appeared any disposition that any more should be done. I do not think any other points were referred to by way of question. I am not going into the details of the Bill, which, when it is before hon. Members, they will have an opportunity of studying for themselves. Something has been said as to when it will be possible to take the second reading. It will be a day or two before it will be in the hands of Members; therefore, probably it will be to the convenience of the House that it should be read a second time about 10 days hence.
      MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: Will it be put down as the first Order of the Day?
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I shall only be too glad to get as good a place as possible for the second reading among the Orders.
      THE MARQUESS OF STAFFORD: I desire to explain that the Local Authority referred to in the Bill I have introduced is meant to be the Local Authority to be appointed under the Local Government scheme, and not the Commissioners of Supply. "With reference to the question of keeping deer, my intention is that
      1340
      everyone who has a deer forest should fence it properly so as to prevent the deer trespassing. I am glad the Government are going to help these people in regard to fishing, as I am sure assistance granted in that direction will be one of the most important ameliorations possible.
      MR. M'CULLOCH: I am very glad to be able to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland on the spirit which has pervaded the introduction of this measure. But the Bill is by no means clear of defects. I think there is a want of scope in locality, and in some other of the provisions the right hon. Gentleman indicated— for instance, in the distinction drawn between arable and pasture land; but I will say that he laid down a principle which this House cannot too widely endorse—namely, that it is impolitic to take public money for the purpose of buying land for any section of the community. That is, I think, to more advanced Liberals the most valuable of principles that have been held by this House. There was one proposition, however, which the right hon. Gentleman asked the House to affirm, to which, on my part, I can give no assent—that the landlords in Scotland have in all cases been considerate and wise. I maintain that the rents have been screwed up by legal machinery, and that they have had, by the very nature of the land itself, a monopoly. The thin end of the wedge is now put in, and I think some of the principles of tenant right will have to be extended to every section of tenants in Scotland. Why? Because the rents now are such that the tenants cannot pay them out of the surplus after the charges of production have been met. A remission of rents is, consequently, as necessary to large tenants as to the crofters; and at the proper time I shall move an Amendment to the effect that the same principle which is applicable to the crofters should be extended to those who have, in consequence of laws unjust and impolitic, been forced into paying more than the natural rent of the land, and into positions which are just as full of vicissitudes as that of the crofters. When this measure is again brought up, I think we should go further and do something for those who have entered into long leases under circumstances that do not at this moment continue. I

      1341
      say, again, that the landlords of Scotland have not, in their relations to the larger tenants, as well as to the smaller, been wise and considerate.
      MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: Before you put the Question from the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say one word. I should have liked, had it been possible, to have expressed my opinion on the Bill like other hon. Members opposite; but as it is not desirable to protract the debate further, it will be well that what remains to be said should be said on the second reading. I think we have to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland for a most lucid and clear statement; but the very lucidity and clearness of his statement have brought out most forcibly that when we come to read the measure which has been prepared by himself and the Lord Advocate, it will be found to be different to a very great extent from the one that was before the House in the early part of this year. Therefore, it will be desirable to have it discussed on the second reading, when the whole terms of it will be before the House. I must say that, from the debate which I have listened to with great interest and attention to-night, I think it desirable, as the Lord Advocate has suggested, that one should have some time for preparing for the debate on the second reading. I myself have taken a great interest in this question, because, having held the Office that the right hon. Gentleman now holds for some time, I was busy in preparing to meet the crofter difficulty to the best of my power. But I have also an interest in it as being my self a Highlander and the son of a Highlander. I do trust, if it is possible, by any means, that we shall be able to bring to an end this difficult and distressing subject, which at present is disturbing so many minds. But, as I said, I do not think it desirable to protract this debate any longer in a rather thin House. The subject will have to be taken up pretty fully on the second reading, and I should like to reserve what I have to say to that occasion.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Bill ordered to be brought it by Mr. TREYELYAN, The LORD ADVOCATE, and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 118.]

  ORDER OF THE DAY.
    LUNACY (VACATING OF SEATS) BILL.
    (Dr. Cameron, Mr. Charles Russell, Mr. Puleston, Mr. William Corbet.)
    LUNACY (VACATING OF SEATS) BILL.

      [BILL 85.] COMMITTEE.
      Order for Committee read.
      DR. CAMERON: I move that the Speaker do now leave the Chair. I simply want to get into Committee on the Bill, and propose at once to move to report Progress.
      Motion made, and Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair,"— (Br. Cameron,)—put, and agreed to.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday next.

    MOTIONS.
      RIVERS POLLUTION (RIVER LEA).

        MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Mr. CHARLES RUSSELL): My object in giving Notice of the Motion which appears on the Paper in my name was to call attention to the existing law for the prevention of pollution in rivers, and the defects therein with reference especially to the River Lea; and to move—
        "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the condition of the River Lea, and to make such recommendations as may appear necessary."
        But I am glad to say it will not be necessary for me to trouble the House at any length upon this subject. I prepared this Motion as a private Member, and then had an opportunity of consulting the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross) and President of the Local Government Board (Mr. A. J. Balfour), and I received the assent of these right hon. Gentlemen, who agree in the desirability of this Committee being appointed. Similar assent was given by the present Homo Secretary (Mr. Childers) and President of the Local Government Board (Mr. J. Chamberlain), and, with the permission of the House, seeing that there is a general concurrence as to the desirability of the Committee, I am content to move for its ap-appointment without further observations.
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the condition of the River Lea, and to make such recommendations as may appear necessary."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
        MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: It would be ungracious and unreasonable to complain of the statement of the Attorney General being short and unsatisfactory. At the same time, I would venture to remark that, according to my experience, the duties of a Select Committee on a particular subject are facilitated very much if something like guidance and light is given to them in the discussion accompanying the Motion for their appointment. This appointment is in connection with the River Lea. I should like very well to see the provisions of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act examined by a Committee, especially in connection with such an important matter as it proposed to refer to this Committee. However, at present, I only wish to guard myself in this way by saying that whenever a subject is brought before a Select Committee without any particular guidance on the part of the House, there is apt to be a little confusion or delay, and perhaps some unsatisfactory result, which might have been prevented by more full and complete discussion.
        SIR LEWIS PELLY: I would venture to occupy the time of the House for one moment on this subject. I submit that it is most desirable that this Committee should be appointed. I represent the Division of Hackney through which the River Lea takes part of its course, and I have been communicated with by my constituents on the subject of the condition of the stream. I also have had the honour of presenting a Petition on the subject.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Mr. CHARLES RUSSELL): I wish to say, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth), that I am obliged to him for not being hard on me for my reticence, as the Motion was unopposed. I desired to save the House the trouble of listening to a statement hardly necessary under the circumstances. I trust that this Committee may have the benefit of the services of the right hon. Gentleman, who took such an important part in the legislation on the subject, and in connection with the Bill of 1876. Any-
        1344
        one with experience of the working of the existing law and of the condition of the River Lea, must see that the law requires considerable amendment.
        MR. HASTINGS: It is rather unfortunate that the subject actually referred to this Committee is so restricted. I am aware that the River Lea is in a bad condition, and that it is urgent that something should be done; but I think there are other rivers which require to have something done to them. The river that flows through my own county —the River Severn—is being more and more polluted every year by the amount of sewage poured into it. It seems to me, therefore, that the Committee should not be entirely restricted to the Lea. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) must be well aware that while the Act, the passage of which he facilitated, is excellent, so far as its provisions go, there is this great defect in the state of the law—that it is exceedingly difficult to put it in force. What is wanted is something to enable the law to be put in force, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) should be able to throw some light on that question, so far as all rivers are concerned, I, for one, should be glad.
        Motion agreed to.

        NATIONAL PROVIDENT INSURANCE.
        Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the best system of National Provident Insurance against Pauperism."—(Sir Herbert Maxwell.)

        EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS.
        Ordered, That the Select Committee on Educational Endowments do consist of Seventeen Members:—Committee nominated of,—Mr. H. G. ALLEN, Mr. L. L. COHEN, Mr. JESSE COLLINGS, Mr. COZENS-HARDY, Mr. DILLON, Mr. J. E. ELLIS, LORD FRANCIS HERVEY, Mr. STAVELEY HILL, Sir HENRY HOLLAND, Mr. ILLINQWORTH, Mr. COURTNEY KENNY, Mr. MASKELYNE, Mr. C. S. PARKER, Sir LYON PLAYEAIR, Mr. P. S. POWELL, Mr. STANHOPE, and Mr. J. G. TALBOT, with power to send for persons, papers, and records.
        Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Sir Lyon Playfair.)

        WATERWORKS (RATING) BILL.
        On Motion of Mr. Gerald Balfour, Bill to amend the Law relating to Waterworks Undertakings belonging to Local Authorities, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerald Balfour, Mr. Dodds, Mr. Coddington, Sir H. Roscoe, Mr. Jackson, and Mr. Picton.
        Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 117.]
        House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Arbitration* (17); Justices' Jurisdiction* (18); Law of Evidence Amendment* (19); Union of Benefices* (20).
Second Reading—Freshwater Fisheries (Eels) (15).

NEW PEER.
Sir Henry Allsopp, Baronet, having been created Baron Hindlip of Hindlip in the county of Worcester and of Alsop-en-le-Dale in the county of Derby—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
FRESHWATER FISHERIES (EELS) BILL.
(The Lord Thurlow.)
FRESHWATER FISHERIES (EELS) BILL.

  (NO. 15.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading road.
  LORD THURLOW,in moving that the Bill be now road a second time, said, that its object was merely to remove doubts which had arisen in the Courts of Law as to the exact interpretation to be placed on the wording of the Freshwater Fisheries Bill. It had been held in the Courts of Law that
  this Bill included eels, though it was not the intention of the framers of that Act that they should be included. The provisions of that Act were inapplicable to this fish. It was a matter largely affecting the question of food supply, not only in London, but in Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, and Liverpool, where largo quantities of eels were consumed. At present there was a very large importation of eels from Ireland, Scotland, and other places where the Act of 1878 was not intended to apply. Beyond that, difficulties had also arisen in other parts of England in ascertaining where the eels sent for sale had actually been caught, and these difficulties had been made the subject of legal proceedings. He was informed that in London alone there were hundreds of shops in the East End where a very large trade was done in this class of fish, and the livelihood of these persons would be jeopardized if the Act of 1878 remained in the uncertain state in which it at present stood.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Thurlow.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

THE NEW PUBLIC OFFICES.

  RESOLUTION.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, it will take but a few minutes to explain and justify the Notice I have given, as the subject has been made familiar on various occasions to your Lordships. The immediate, or, at least, the urgent fact is, that the demolition of Spring Gardens has begun, and that on Monday a deputation is about to approach Her Majesty's Government from the Institute of Architects and point out the course which ought to be adopted. That deputation may, of course, convince the Government, as many persons are convinced already, that it is better for the Public Offices Site Act to continue in abeyance, as it did, to his lasting credit, the whole time that the noble Marquess who now leads the Opposition presided in the Councils of Her Majesty. The arguments against the Public Offices Site Act are too well-known to be enumerated. However, the most conclusive did not come into existence until the Act was carried, and

  1171
  therefore could not weigh with Parliament against it. It is the revelation of last August, under the late Government, that 10 years would be consumed in the work to be executed; that during all that time the Parade and Horse Guards would be disfigured; that during all that time a portion of Carlton House Terrace would be insupportable to residents, and useless in the market; that during all that time, in any year, the work might be arrested by the taste or the economy of Parliament, and thus remain a fragmentary monument both of extravagance and penury. If the House permits me, I will explain at once how the demolition of Spring Gardens, which your Lordships are intreated to arrest until the 1st of March, bears upon the case and tends to carry with it the remainder of the project. The whole defence of the Public Offices Site Act rested on what I have already mentioned—namely, the inadequate accommodation of the War Office. That accommodation ought at once to be extended. It can be at once extended by a plan I mentioned here, and have since urged on the late Government. There is in Spring Gardens an unofficial residence—it belonged to the late Sir William Gomm—of such dimensions that the Commander-in-Chief and Adjutant General with their respective Staffs might easily be placed in it. It is well situated between Pall Mall and the Horse Guards; it has abundant space for archives; it is available for the purposes of Government. The object of the Public Offices Site Act might thus be rapidly attained, not at the end, but at the beginning of a decade. But if the demolition now commenced goes forward, in a few days that residence may vanish altogether. Further steps will then be indispensable to give the War Office a refuge. It is true that even then it will have nothing to look forward to until 10 years have passed; and if that interval does not exhaust the life or patience of its inmates, the prospect of relief may be withdrawn in any of the Sessions—not always smooth, perhaps—which have to be encountered. My Lords, I do not charge the actual Government with any blind intention to precipitate the measure against a view so evidently reasonable. It never had a strenuous advocate within their circle beyond Mr. Shaw Lefevre, whose inability to find a seat in any part of the
  1172
  United Kingdom sufficiently expresses the opinion of the country with regard to it. What I am led to think the Government will dwell upon is the necessity, at any price, in any manner, of giving labour to the unemployed, whose wants endanger the Metropolis. But it should be remembered that a scheme of this kind would do little for the East of London, where the greatest scarcity prevails. Public Offices require skilled and special labour, which is not abundant in that region. To relieve distress within it much better schemes might be imagined. A tunnel between Rotherhithe and Shadwell has been often canvassed, and the embankment of the Thames on the Southern side has yet to be accomplished. In any case, it is not desirable to paralyze and to forestall the deputation, which must throw light on the course it is expedient to adopt. It may possibly be said that the materials are sold to a contractor, who is entitled to remove them. They ought not to have been sold to a contractor, when the whole project has so little in its favour, and when the electors—so far as we can judge—have so decidedly condemned it. But, even in that case, to deal with the contractor on the basis of an amicable settlement, might not be beyond the reach of Ministerial ability. The First Lord of the Treasury would not be unequal to the problem. It might exercise the virgin mind—virgin on finance—of the new Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have but one more remark by which, if possible, to urge your Lordships into interference against the demolition of Spring Gardens before the architects are listened to. Although, technically, the Public Offices Site Bill went into the Statute Book, it really never had the sanction of your Lordships. No division happened. I am responsible myself, and have before now explained the circumstances. But, while by accident, there was not a decision, in every debate opinion, argument, authority, were growing on the side unfavourable to the measure. It would well become the House, so far as they are able, to rectify a judgement inadvertently pronounced, and which the actual House of Commons has not in any way subscribed to.
  Moved to resolve—
  "That in the opinion of this House no further steps either of demolition or construction ought

  1173
  to be taken under the Public Offices Site Act before Her Majesty's Government have heard the deputation from the Institute of Architects, arranged to take place on the 1st of March next."—(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
  LORD LAMINGTONsaid, he was not aware that the work of demolition had commenced until he saw this Motion. He had given Notice that he would move a Resolution on the 5th of March that nothing should be done until after a discussion on the subject. He should be compelled to alter his Resolution accordingly.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (The Earl of MORLEY)said, the noble Lord (Lord Stratheden and Campbell) had been a consistent, he might almost say a persistent, opponent of the new site for Public Offices, and the noble Lord had submitted a modest proposal in regard to it—that no steps either of demolition or construction ought to be taken before Monday nest. He need not tell the House that there was no great chance of anything being done in the way of construction before Monday next. But as to demolition, in consequence of measures already taken, an Act of Parliament passed and money voted by the House of Commons, the materials of the houses in Spring Gardens had actually been sold, and the contractors were already removing materials of houses which no longer belonged to the Government. Therefore, it was absolutely impossible to arrest the progress of the demolitions until Monday next. He thought the House would be satisfied with that explanation at present, The noble Lord opposite (Lord Lamington) had just told the House that he was about to raise a debate on the whole question in the course of next week. At that time he would be happy to give any information in his power, and the Government would then have heard what the Institute of Architects had to say on the subject. He did not think there was any probability of an alteration of the site which had been already fixed on.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL,in reply, said, that he would not divide the House unless he had an intimation that noble Lords upon the other side were ready to adopt the Motion, as his noble Friend (Lord Lamington) who sat among them had been prompt in its support. The noble Lord who spoke for
  1174
  Her Majesty's Government had urged nothing but the argument contract, to which he (Lord Stratheden and Campbell) had replied already. He would further remind the Government that to indemnify contractors they had by the Vote of last year £10,000 in their possession which might have no other use, as it was far from certain that a further Vote would be conceded to them. If, however, the Government persisted in demolishing Spring Gardens, he could only offer a respectful but emphatic protest against the course they had decided on.
  Motion (by leave of the House) with drawn.

METROPOLIS—SUNDAY MEETINGS IN THE SQUARES AND PARKS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD LAMINGTON,in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether they intend to declare illegal all public meetings and processions in the squares and the parks on Sundays, as they inter-fore with the comfort of all classes, and may lead to disturbance? said, with respect to the very disgraceful riots which arose out of the meeting in Trafalgar Square, he thought the police and Sir Edmund Henderson had been very hardly treated indeed. On other occasions of monster meetings in Trafalgar Square he believed that the mob went away by different streets, and no not or breaking of windows had before occurred in connection with those meetings. On this occasion they went away, as they had done so many times previously, by different thoroughfares, so that when the not occurred both the police and Mr. Childers were equally taken by surprise, as they did not anticipate any disturbance. He should like to know how it was possible for either the police or anyone else to follow crowds of people dispersing in different directions. The real cause of all that which subsequently followed on the Monday when the riots took place was in allowing such immense gatherings to take place. It was said that there were 20,000, 30,000, or even as many as 50,000 persons assembled at the late meeting. Was there any city in Europe in which a similar thing would be permitted? In the French capital did they think 100 men would be allowed to assemble in a public

  1175
  square? In Berlin or Vienna did they suppose that 40,000 or 50,000 would be permitted to assemble to endanger the safety of the Metropolis? The whole thing was a disgrace to any English Government—be did not care to which side of politics it belonged—that such proceedings should be tolerated. That the whole of Pall Mall, St. James's Street, and Piccadilly should be blocked by an assembly of peope like that was perfectly monstrous. Moreover, by what rule were lorries allowed into the parts of the Park were carriages were not permitted? And Mr. Hyndman and his followers were allowed to build up platforms and to make these abominable speeches. It was time to put an end to such a state of things. It was disgraceful that a man like Hyndman—be was said to be a gentleman, but nobody would believe it—should be allowed to do as he had done. Mr. Quelch, who moved the first resolution, said—"They must seize all land, machinery, and capital for the benefit of the community." Mr. Burns said—
  "The seeds of a bloody revolution were germinating. The Trafalgar Square meeting had affected Vienna and Paris, for when London moved the world moved."
  Mr. Hyndman said—
  "People like the Duke of Devonshire (Cries of 'Shoot him!')—well, if they did there would he another to-morrow. (Cries of 'Shoot him too!') The upper classes robbed the working men to debauch their daughters and sisters. They were the lazy, loafing, and criminal classes. They wanted a social revolution. They would bring it about peaceably if they could; it rested with the upper classes whether it should be peaceable or not. London was the centre where all the great vampires of the commercial world were gathered together."
  Another said—
  "The money now subscribed at the Mansion House had been stolen from the working classes."
  He asked whether on a Sunday afternoon such a scene should be permitted? That on Sunday evening the streets should be made impassable for respectable people, who were afraid to leave their houses, was intolerable. He did not know what the law might be upon this subject; but if it was not strong enough it ought to be strengthened. Large sums had been voted for the preservation of the public Parks, and it was really monstrous that they should allow them to be occupied in the way they had been, to the exclusion of people who de-
  1176
  sired to frequent them for enjoyment. He had limited his Motion to restricting the right of meetings on Sundays, because that was a day when all desired rest from their weekly toil. They had done themselves an immense amount of harm by the occurrence in question, by the credence which it seemed to have given to the idea that their various institutions were in a state of decay, and from the idea, also, which was prevalent, that the Government had neither the strength, the will, nor the authority to put down meetings of this kind. He felt that unless the matter was taken in hand the end would be a social and terrible revolution.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid, he regretted that in the Report of the Committee over which Mr. Childers presided, and in the Memorandum which the right hon. Gentleman had since published with regard to his future intentions as to this great question, no reference was made to the special branch of the subject mentioned by the noble Lord (Lord Lamington) who had just sat down. He (Viscount Midleton) ventured to think that this part of the question went to the very root of the matter. It was a question whether such meetings, especially when they were held on a Sunday, were any longer safe or desirable in the Metropolis. The Military Authorities, he believed, had arrived at the conclusion that, considering the enormous increase of the population of the Metropolis, it was a question of very great doubt whether any more military displays should take place in the heart of London—not because of any danger which the military were likely to produce, but because of the danger that might arise from the large crowds collected together on such occasions. Surely, if that was the case, gatherings of the kind which recently took place had become completely out of date. He had hoped that, considering the many representations that had been made to the Home Office, Mr. Childers would have seen the gravity of the question, and would have taken some steps to inquire as to what means could be adopted to prevent the peril to which the Metropolis was constantly exposed by the recurrence of these demonstrations. The result of the inquiry had been the retirement of Sir Edmund Henderson; but what struck him was the extreme ingratitude of the Home Office

  1177
  in this matter. The penultimate Predecessor of the present Home Secretary cost £1,500 a-year for police protection. If a sum of that kind had been spent, ho thought the present Home Secretary (Mr. Childers) might have behaved a little more generously to those to whom his Predecessor owed his existence. His own opinion was that the public services of Sir Edmund Henderson in the preservation of law and order had been considerably more than had been rendered by five Mr. Childerses in the past. There was no reason whatever why this question should not at least be investigated. Sir Richard Mayne, he knew, felt a great difficulty in controlling large bodies of men when they had been brought together in a limited space; and it should be remembered that that officer had to deal with a population very little more than half of the population under the charge of the Chief Commissioner at the present time. Every year made the difficulty greater, because with an increase of population must come also an increase of the criminal classes; and they also found that a largo portion of the criminal community attended demonstrations for the purpose of carrying out the objects for which they existed—plunder and destruction. An inquiry such as he suggested would not cast the slightest slur upon the working classes, as no one for a moment would suppose that they had anything to do with the recent outrages. The time had come when they should make up their minds whether it was profitable or safe that these gatherings should be permitted to take place except under very stringent regulations as to control and as to the numbers attending them. If it should be found impossible to place restrictions either upon the numbers attending the meetings or upon the manner in which the meetings were held, then they must come to the conclusion that such demonstrations ought to be prohibited altogether. No one was more unwilling than he was to say or do anything to check the full expression of public opinion; but at the present time every class of Her Majesty's subjects had facilities for expressing their views in a legitimate manner upon any subject which did not exist in former times. He doubted whether there was a single district in London in which there was no building capable of being used for large
  1178
  public meetings. That being so, he did not understand why a small and comparatively insignificant class should be allowed to monopolize open places of public resort which were intended for the use of the inhabitants of the Metropolis generally. He held that a definite conclusion ought to be come to upon the question of open-air meetings, so that in future Governments might not be left without guidance.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the Government ought to accede to the views of the noble Lord (Lord Lamington), who had brought the subject forward on the ground that those views were prompted by a desire to effect the happiness of the greatest number, a rule which they were inclined to follow, sometimes even at the expense of principle. The number of those who took part in the late riots was very small, not more than 2,000. The Government had explained the numerous executions in Burmah by the necessity of suppressing dacoity and of protecting the innocent villagers, and were they not equally bound to protect shopkeepers in London and innocent villagers in Ireland from the violence of the ill-disposed?
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, that he was unable to agree with the noble Viscount in his remarks as to prohibiting public meetings. It was quite clear that from time to time the police organization required looking into, in order that they might have the proper proportion of officers and men, and that arrangements might be made to secure the efficiency of the force. This was a proper matter for consideration by a Committee of Inquiry; but the subject which was dealt with in this Resolution was more a matter for legislation, and it was impossible to deny that the same arguments which were used to prohibit Sunday meetings were equally applicable to meetings held on any other day. The Government of which he was a Member endeavoured to mitigate the inconvenience by limiting the space in Hyde Park on which those meetings could be held. It should be observed that less inconvenience was caused by meetings on Sundays than would arise on other days. If enormous processions were to march through the principal thoroughfares of the towns on week days, with the object of influencing the higher classes of society, all traffic would be impeded. He doubted whe-

  1179
  ther it would be possible to prohibit public meetings in Hyde Part. The processions were generally arranged with a due regard to order, and the leaders of such demonstrations, as a rule, informed the Commissioners of Police of the intended line of march, and asked that adequate measures might be taken to insure order. Steps of this kind had been taken by the people who called the meeting in Trafalgar Square on the 8th instant. Although he was of opinion that meetings in the Park and other large open spaces could not be prevented, he thought that attention might well be turned to the question whether demonstrations should be permitted in Trafalgar Square, were meetings were frequently held, to the great inconvenience of the public, with the special object of overawing the Houses of Parliament. If meetings were held, he agreed that steps should be taken to minimize the public danger and inconvenience as much as possible.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, he held that the public had a right to be protected against such dangers as were incurred through the agglomeration of immense masses of people in the neighbourhood of places like Trafalgar Square, where shops were open, and people were employed in their ordinary daily avocations, and where there was a congestion of traffic. It was remarkable that the direction in which the flow of people set after meetings in Trafalgar Square was generally that of Whitehall. Colonel Pearson had stated before Mr. Childers's Committee that the flow of the crowd from such meetings was very largely down Whitehall, and that he had often been obliged to block Whitehall with police in order to prevent the crowd from surging down that thoroughfare. It should be remembered that the Public Offices and Houses of Parliament were in this direction, and ought not to be thus exposed. Anyone who happened to be in Hyde Park on Sunday last could see that respectable people were driven out of the Park, that at every 10 yards peaceable citizens were confronted by policemen, and that the place had all the appearance of being in state of seige. Was it decent that a state of things should exist which rendered it necessary that soldiers should be confined to barracks on the Sunday, and that every policeman not on duty should remain at home or at the headquarters of his district, in order to
  1180
  be ready to protect harmless people against others who chose to resort to the Park for purposes of no public utility? The Legislature had decided that nominations at elections should no longer take place in the open air in consequence of the disturbances that used to accompany the proceedings, and it would be well to consider whether the precedent might not be applied to the occasions to which the debate referred. Such great masses of people as assembled in these cases could not hear what the orator said, and there was always turmoil and noise which were opposed to reasonable discussion. In Trafalgar Square on the 8th instant, the respectable working men who met to ventilate their grievances were opposed by a mob of a totally different character, and a collision was expected. The danger that he feared was not revolution; but that one day in the Park or Square two masses of men of opposite views would come into conflict, and that a bloody massacre might ensue. What would be said if anywhere out of London such demonstrations were organized in one town and were extended to another town by processions passing from one to the other? Yet the people taking part in the demonstrations in Hyde Park did not belong to the neighbourhood of the Parks, but they came from distant parts of London, and their object was to strike terror into the people who lived or occupied property about the Parks. In consequence of the terror produced by what happened in London on the Monday night, on the Tuesday 10 miles of shops were shut up, and all business was brought to a standstill. It was impossible with the best police arrangements to prevent disturbances and panic unless you could so dispose of and use your police as to prevent rioters proceeding collectively in certain directions in which they would be disposed to commit injuries. It was quite possible to deal with this matter without interfering with the right of public meetings; nobody wished to do that. There were plenty of places where people could hold meetings if they desired to do so, and where addresses could be delivered with the prospect of the speaker being listened to and heard. There were such places that were not surrounded by dense populations, and where danger would not attend the holding of an out-door meeting. If we allowed persons from all

  1181
  parts of London to assemble in Trafalgar Square and in the Parks, and this was especially true in reference to Sunday, we should irritate the police to the last degree, and if a collision did occur it would be impossible that the police should not remember how they had been harassed by these gatherings. We should also alienate the soldiers, on whom, in the last resort, we must rely, by shutting them in their barracks and depriving them of necessary recreation, which was as essential to them as to any other part of the community.
  LORD THURLOWsaid, that the noble Lord who had asked the Question would appreciate the importance of it as much as anyone, and would especially appreciate the difficulty of entering upon many considerations that affected it at the present time. In these circumstances, he trusted their Lordships would excuse him if he replied as concisely as he could to the exact terms of the Question. He had, therefore, to state, on the part of the Home Office, that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government, at the present moment, to declare illegal all public meetings and all processions in the Squares and Parks on Sundays. It might not, however, be inappropriate if he reminded their Lordships that steps were about to be taken with a view, if possible, to improve the hitherto existing arrangements which governed these proceedings; but pending the contemplated inquiry, and the decision at which the Home Office might arrive, it would, perhaps, be wise on the part of the public, and even, perhaps, of Parliament, to refrain from further discussisn.
  LORD LAMINGTONsaid, that, in consequence of the unsatisfactory reply which had been given on behalf of the Government, he should certainly, in due time, bring the question before their Lordships again, and take their opinion upon it.

IRELAND—THE NATIONAL LEAGUE—LOCAL COURTS.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, in the unavoidable absence of Lord Castletown, who had been obliged to leave for Ireland last night, he had to ask the Question which stood on the Paper in the name of the noble Lord. The Question was as follows:—
"To ask the Lord President of the Council, Whether he will, in addition to the information
1182
he has agreed to present respecting "Boycotting and other outrages," give such information as may be in the possession of the Government officials in Ireland, or can he obtained by them with reference to cases of trials of farmers and others by National League local courts, and the infliction of fines and sentences by those tribunals; and, also any cases of appeals from these courts to the Superior National League Court in Dublin for confirmation or revision?"
The noble Earl said, that the Question had reference to a state of things which prevailed at the, present moment in Ireland of the most alarming and dangerous character, and which it was necessary some steps should be taken to deal with, if any semblance of law and order was to obtain in that country. From the information at his disposal, and at the disposal of his noble Friend who was to have asked the Question, it appeared that National League Courts not only existed and flourished in Ireland, but that the decrees and decisions of these Courts were obeyed and enforced, while the decisions of Her Majesty's Courts were not enforced at all. He (the Earl of Limerick) would not trouble the House at any great length with any quotations to prove the existence of these Courts, nor was it necessary that he should do so. The Irish newspapers were full of instances of inquiries held by branches of the League; and it was not at all necessary for him to go into them at any length. He would only take one or two cases; and he would ask that the Government should, at least, actively inquire as to the extent to which these Courts existed and the nature of the operations, and put an effective stop to the further spread of acts of illegality. In one case he found that, on November 19th, 1885, a meeting was held in a Boman Catholic chapel, and the statement of the parish priest was heard against a man stated to be a land-grabber. The result was that a fine of £30 was imposed. In the town of Drumcollagher the action of a tailor in supplying a suit of clothes to a man who was at enmity with the League, was brought forward; but as the tailor had died no further action was taken. In another case he found reported in the papers—no names were given—that a man who had taken a farm was summoned to the League Court and ordered to pay £600 to the former tenant or surrender the farm. If such cases as these were true, it went to show that there

1183
were Courts in Ireland hearing cases and enforcing fines and penalties. How was this done? It was done by an extreme and monstrous system of "Boycotting," accompanied in many cases by dreadful consequences to the victim s of the system. This system was not confined to rich or poor in particular—more frequently, indeed, it was the poor who suffered from it. He asked the Question with great confidence in the noble Earl opposite (Earl Spencer), for he could bear willing testimony to the fact that when he was Lord Lieutenant he took the strongest means to put down all these illegalities. It was with the greatest pleasure he (the Earl of Limerick) said that there was no Member of the House who would bear more willing evidence to the manner in which the noble Earl had discharged his duties as Viceroy with impartiality, firmness, and fairness. He (the Earl of Limerick) then quoted from the charge of a County Court Judge in Ireland, who said that he did not think that any honest man could say that the country was in a state of tranquillity, or that obedience to the law was observed. On the contrary, the law and government of the country were never held in greater contempt than at present. The Government was superseded by a much more powerful Government; and if that were so, it was impossible that he could compliment them, however much he would wish to do so, on the state of order which prevailed.
THE EARL OF EGMONTsaid, that one of the cases mentioned had occurred on his property. A tenant took a farm in 1881; he spent a good deal of money upon it, and improved it; and in 1885 the League ordered him to pay £600 to the former tenant, who had been evicted. He understood that the present holder had already paid £500.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Earl SPENCER)said: I do not propose to enter into a discussion of the subject which the noble Earl has introduced. I readily admit the very grave condition of affairs to which allusion has been made, and which shows that a very unfortunate state of things has existed during the last seven months in Ireland. There is no doubt that the fact that these Land Courts are held, and that they exercise these functions if, as I believe, it is true that they do shows a very unfortuate state of things',
1184
and a state of things which must be remedied. I do not propose now to state—I have told your Lordships before that I am unable to state—the policy by which Her Majesty's Government have to meet the question of social order in Ireland, and the other matters which are committed to them. I cannot go into that. "With regard to the Notice on the Paper, I regret that it is not possible for the Government—though they are anxious to furnish as much information to the House and the public on this subject as they can—to give any Return of this character that would be satisfactory, or which it would conduce to the public interest to give. These Land Courts, as they are called, are held in private houses, and sometimes, I believe, as the noble Earl mentioned, they are held in Roman Catholic chapels; but, being held in private, we have no means of getting any information about them excepting reports which were brought to the Government in a confidential manner. Those reports could not be presented to Parliament. There are obvious and numerous reasons why they could not be made public. It is, therefore, quite out of the power of the Government to grant these Returns, although they would be exceedingly glad if they could to furnish any information on the subject. The other night, when the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Cranbrook) asked for a Return, I stated that the Government would most willingly give it, and that Return is being prepared as quickly as possible. That Return relates to "Boycotting" and intimidation; but it does not touch these particular cases of the Land Courts, as to which, for the reasons I have indicated, it would be impossible for the Government to produce satisfactory information.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, that though the noble Earl had stated that he could not, without detriment to the public interest, supply a technical Return as to these Courts asked for by his noble Friend (the Earl of Limerick), he (Lord Ashbourne) did think that it would have been possible for the noble Earl (Earl Spencer), without detriment to the public interest, to have said something more than he did in the observations he had made. What was the state of facts which was practically and almost in terms admitted now not only to have

1185
existed during the last seven months; but he would go further, and say during many more months of the noble Earl's own tenure of Office as Viceroy, and which existed now in greater intensity than at any former time—what was the state of facts admittedly in existence? That there were Courts held under the sanction of the National League, with a procedure of their own and an appellate system of their own, administered under the sanction of the League, administered with the sanctions of terror and intimidation the purpose of such Courts was to supersede, degrade, and bring into contempt the administration of the Queen's law. That was the state of facts now admitted by the responsible Minister of the Crown to be the existing state of affairs in Ireland, and to have been the state of affairs in Ireland for the last seven months. The late Government were quite aware of the great difficulty which the noble Earl had stated of obtaining evidence in regard to what took place at those meetings; and that might have been one of the very powerful considerations presented to Parliament by the late Government to induce it to supersede the ordinary law so as to enable them to grapple with the state of things, and with a procedure so insidious and so destructive to the administration of the authority of the law in Ireland. But what was the outcome of the statement of the noble Earl? The noble Earl admitted the great evil that existed. He would be taken to admit its deadly peril to the Queen's Sovereignty and to respect for the law; and he further practically avowed that in that position of affairs the Government were unable to do anything, even by way of a public announcement, to restore confidence in the law and the assertion of the law. It was easy to say that the Government were unable to make a full announcement of their policy, and that they were not to expect it from them for four or five weeks to come; but that was a question, not of policy, but of administering the existing law, so as to insure respect for the Queen's authority and something like decent respect for the Queen's law. At all events, ho thought they were entitled to some statement from those who represented the existing Government that they were not only alive to the gravity of the situation which they acknowledged existed, but
1186
that they would take such resolute steps as might be in their power to note what went on in Ireland, and to procure such evidence as might be in their power; and that when they had procured that evidence no exertion would be wanting to put down a state of facts which was as perilous as it was discreditable to the Empire. [Earl SPENCER assented.] A gesture could not be reported; but he thought he was doing nothing disrespectful to their Lordships when he translated the nods and gestures of the noble Earl (Earl Spencer) as meaning that they—the present Government—would anxiously watch the process and procedure by which these Courts now sought to bring the Queen's law into contempt, and that whenever they could procure evidence—and no efforts would be wanting on their part to procure evidence—that no exertions would be wanting to bring to punishment and trial those who in these Courts brought into disrepute the whole administration of the Government in Ireland. He ventured thus to put into plain English what he took to be the meaning of the applause and gesture of the noble Earl opposite; and if he (Lord Ashbourne) laboured under a misconception, it was due not only to himself, but to their Lordships' House, that he should be publicly corrected, so that there should be a perfect understanding as to every particular about so grave a matter.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Earl GRANVILLE): I have not the slightest hesitation in endorsing by words what the noble and learned Lord (Lord Ashbourne) gathers from the gesture of my noble Friend (Earl Spencer) who was some time ago Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The Government feel the responsibility resting upon them, and deem it necessary to watch in the most attentive manner all the events going on in Ireland; and they are devoting themselves to considering the very best mode of dealing, among other subjects, with disorder and disrespect for the law. But I must say that the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Ashbourne) is one of the last persons who should make an attack on the Government. He has said that "Boycotting" existed during the Viceroyalty of my noble Friend near me. Nobody denied that some "Boycotting" did

1187
exist at that time. But Lord Carnarvon told your Lordships, and the Leader of the other House under the late Government told that Assembly, that the country was almost in a state of normal quiet on the accession of the present Government to Office, and it is well known that it increased rapidly after the Prorogation of Parliament; and yet the late Government did not in any manner provide a remedy for dealing with it by exceptional legislation. There was nothing like the amount of "Boycotting" that afterwards existed when the late Government were in Office. [Lord ASHBOURNE dissented.] The noble and learned Lord shakes his head. I do not know exactly what that gesture means. Does he deny that "Boycotting" increased day by day?
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he was not dealing with "Boycotting," but with the particular subject referred to in the Question put by the noble Earl (the Earl of Limerick)—namely, as to the existence of the National League Courts. He was quite prepared to discuss the wider question.
EARL GRANVILLE: As far as I know, the noble and learned Lord (Lord Ashbourne) was talking of the same thing. It is part of the whole question; and, therefore, what I wish to remonstrate against is the noble and learned Lord taking every opportunity to twit the Government with being a little slow in dealing with that which the late Government entirely neglected.

ARBITRATION BILL [H.L.] (NO. 17.)
A Bill to consolidate the law relating to Arbitration:
JUSTICES' JURISDICTION' BILL [H.L.] (NO. 18.)
A Bill to extend the jurisdiction of justices in general and quarter sessions of the peace: And
LAW OF EVIDENOE AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.] (NO. 19.)
A Bill further to amend the law of evidence: Were presented by The Lord Bramwell; read 1a.

UNION OF BENEFICES BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the law relating to the union of benefices—Was presented by The Earl of Milltown; read 1a. (No. 20.)
House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.