Sitting of 10 April 1888

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Limerick Borough, v. Henry Joseph Gill, esquire, Chiltern Hundreds.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Resolutions [April 9] reported.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Withdrawn—Sutton and Wimbledon Railway.*
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—
Customs and Inland Revenue* [202].
Second Reading—Municipal Franchise (Belfast)* [138], put off; Wages (Ireland)* [139], put off.
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Copy-right (Musical Compositions)* [156], and passed.
Withdrawn—Vagrant Act Amendment* [125]; Habitual Drunkards Act (1879) Amendment* [141].

DEATH OF HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY THE GERMAN EMPEROR.
MR. SPEAKERacquainted the House that he had received through the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, a communication from the German Ambassador in London, which he felt sure that the House would wish him to read:—
"The Imperial German Parliament passed a Resolution unanimously at their sitting of the 19th instant, to the effect that the expressions of veneration for our deceased Monarch, and of participation in the grief of the German People manifested by the House of Commons, have called forth the deepest sympathy and the liveliest gratitude throughout Germany, and constitute a signal proof of the friendly relations existing between the two Peoples."

QUESTIONS.

  EGYPT—THE DAIRA SANIEH OF THE KHEDIVE.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is aware that the Daira Sanieh of the Khedive (the great land and sugar industry of Egypt) is in the habit of letting its lands by auction, and that, although it binds itself in writing that the last day of the auction shall be "the definite close of the auction," and "that every subsequent offer shall be refused," it is in the constant habit of breaking its undertaking by turning out the fellaheen after they have been declared tenants and let into possession under the auc-

  847
  tion, and even after they have bought seed and ploughed and cultivated the land, in direct contravention of the Judgment of the Government Court of Inquiry held on the Daira in 1886, which judgment, after calling special attention to this practice, censured the French and English controllers for not having prevented it in the past, and warned them "to exercise stricter supervision for the future;" whether he knows that, as a result of the treatment by the Daira of its tenants, up to the end of 1887 (the close of the auction), the Daira was unable to let a single acre of the sugar lands for 1888 in eight out of nine districts, and only 95 acres in the ninth district (the number offered to be let being about 25,000), and that, during the last 35 days of the said auctions, the Daira sent three special Commissioners to aid the Chief Governor in each of the districts to let the lands, but that the fellaheen refused to take a single acre except as aforesaid; and, whether Lieutenant Colonel Money, Inspector of the Daira, has thrown up his appointment rather than assent to these practices?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): No circumstances corresponding to the statements implied by the Question of the hon. Gentleman have been reported to Her Majesty's Government.

  SAMOA—KING MALIETOA.
  MR. DILLWYNasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he now knows where the German Government have conveyed King Malietoa of Samoa; and, if he does not know, whether Her Majesty's Government will endeavour to obtain such information from the authorities at Berlin?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The Governor of Lagos, on the 2nd of February, reported that a German gun vessel had called there, having previously left King Malietoa at Cameroons.

  FISHERIES (SCOTLAND)—APPLECROSS BAY.
  DR. R. MACDONALDasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he will make inquiries as to
  848
  the truth of the statement that Lord Middleton has placed several hundred posts, with iron hooks attached, across Applecross Bay; whether these posts will prevent herring fishing in the bay; and, whether Lord Middleton is legally justified in thus depriving the local fishermen of the chance of fishing for herrings in the said bay?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): Inquiry has been made into this matter, from which it appears that Lord Middleton has placed about 36 posts across the north side and towards the head of Applecross Bay, to prevent salmon poaching. I am informed that these posts would not in any way interfere with or hinder herring fishing, if such fishing took place there, which I am led to understand it never does. I could not give the hon. Member any legal opinion on the matter.

  POST OFFICE (SCOTLAND)—THE LEWIS TELEGRAPH CABLE.
  DR. R. MACDONALDasked the Postmaster General, When it is his intention to have the telegraph cable between Lewis and the mainland, which has been out of order for several weeks, repaired; and, whether, having regard to the large fishing interests of the Island, which are mainly dependent for the sale of fish on telegraphic intelligence, he intends to lay a new cable instead of that now out of order?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES), in reply, said, the cable ship belonging to the Post Office was now engaged in the repair of the Stornoway cable. She had been until very recently under repair. The state of affairs referred to in the Question had been brought to his notice about a fortnight ago by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill); and he had given orders that, as soon as the cable ship had finished her repairs, the first duty she should take in hand would be to repair this cable.

  CHARITY COMMISSIONERS—SCHEMES UNDER THE ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACTS.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education,

  849
  Whether, in future, when any scheme of the Charity Commissioners involving any alteration of the Trusts of a Charity is laid before the House, the Charity Commissioners will print with it, and annex to it, a short précis of the original Trusts of the Founders and Benefactors, with a reference to the volume and page of the Reports where they are given in full; and also state, with the scheme, what amount of property or income it is proposed to deal with?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): Schemes framed under the provisions of the Endowed Schools Acts are not laid before Parliament by the Charity Commissioners, but by the Committee of Council on Education. It would be in some cases impossible, and in others misleading, to furnish with every scheme laid before the House of Commons a short précis of the original Trusts, &c. But the Charity Commissioners will have much pleasure in furnishing, whenever they are invited by the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education to do so, for the information of the House of Commons, a written statement explanatory of any scheme which has been laid before the House.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 1.
  MR. CAREW(for Mr. GILL)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many inquiries under the 1st section of the Criminal Law Amendment Act have been held in Ireland up to the present; and, to what extent have these inquiries resulted in obtaining evidence leading to the detection or conviction of the perpetrators of crime or outrage?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Six inquiries under the 1st section of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, have been commenced. Three of these have been concluded. In one, a murder case, one man has been sentenced to death and another is now on his trial. In the second, a case of shooting at, with intent to murder, a person has been committed for trial at the present Wicklow Assizes; and, in
  850
  the third, a case of "Boycotting," a prosecution is about to be instituted. The remaining three inquiries are still in progress. I would, however, beg to point out to the hon. Member who puts this Question that a comprehensive Return relating to such inquiries is, in accordance with the requirements of the statute, published quarterly in The Dublin Gazette.

  LAND JUDGES' COURT (IRELAND)— ARREARS—JUDGMENT OF MR. JUSTICE MONROE.
  MR. CAREW(for Mr. GILL)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that Mr. Justice Monroe, in the Land Judges' Court last week, having abated by 30 per cent the rents of the tenants on the Bomford Estate, in the County of Westmeath, and having been applied to by the tenants' counsel to wipe out all arrears of old rents due by said tenants, decided as follows:—
  "There was not the slightest use in holding on to arrears on small holdings of this kind. He (Mr. Justice Monroe) would make an order that the year's rent of 1887 should be paid, less abatements of 30 per cent, or such abatements as the Land Commissioners might fix, before the 1st of May, and that all arrears should be wiped out;"
  And, whether, in view of this judicial action, and of the great number of ejectment decrees obtained recently by landlords in Ireland for non-payment of arrears of rent, Her Majesty's Government will reconsider their decision not to deal with the arrears question by legislation this Session?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, I beg to ask him whether Mr. Justice Monroe and the other Judges in the Landed Estates Court have not this power of remitting the arrears on 1,500 estates in Ireland?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): In answer to the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, I believe there is a very large number of estates in the Landed Estates Court. I will not pledge myself to the exact number. In regard to the Question on the Paper, I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the report. Mr. Justice Monroe appears to have been of opinion that it was expedient to remit

  851
  the arrears, not on the ground that they were inequitable, but that they were irrecoverable. He was acting as owner, and many other owners have come to a similar conclusion; but I fail to see that this fact has any material bearing on the policy of the Government with respect to arrears.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREasked, had not the Judge referred to granted the application of the tenants, notwithstanding that the owners objected?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked for Notice of the Question,

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 1.
  MR. CAREW(for Mr. GILL)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can give the House any information as to the purpose of the inquiry under Section 1 of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, which has been instituted within the past month at Carrick-on-Shannon by Mr. Joyce, Resident Magistrate?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The inquiry in question has reference to a Boycotting conspiracy.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 1.
  MR. CAREW(for Mr. GILL)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Mr. Matthew J. Barrett, of the firm of Messrs. J. Barrett and Company, Carrick-on-Shannon, and Mr. Thomas Costello, manager of the business establishment of Mr. Edward Costello, Carrick-on-Shannon, were sentenced to three terms of imprisonment for contempt of Court, in refusing to give evidence at the inquiry under Section 1 of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, recently held in that town; and, what is the reason that, on being brought up a fourth time on Tuesday last, they were unconditionally discharged, although they still refused to give evidence?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The informations and facts connected with
  852
  this case were laid before the Attorney General for Ireland, who directed the prosecution of the person whom the in-formations and facts appeared to him to point to as the principal offender. The requirements of justice did not demand the further detention of the persons named in the Question, who were accordingly discharged.

  WAR OFFICE (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT)—CONTRACTS FOR BAYONETS.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Secretary of State for War, What number of bayonets have up to now been supplied by Messrs. Wilkinson under their contract; and, whether any alteration has taken place in the test which these bayonets were to satisfy, and which was described by him in this House last year?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): Delivery of the bayonets supplied by Messrs. Wilkinson has been necessarily suspended, in consequence of certain changes having been made in the fittings of the hilt on the recommendation of a Special Committee. The same Committee has also recommended that the "spring," or shortening by vertical pressure, should be reduced from one inch to seven-eighths of an inch. These changes will make no alteration in the price.

  INDIA (FINANCE, &c.)—THE BUDGET ESTIMATES.
  MR. HOYLEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If the Estimates of the Indian Bridget are likely to be seriously disturbed by the rates at which the Secretary of State is now disposing of bills and transfers: and, if so, what would be the amount of the further deficit for the year at the present rate of exchange?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON)(who replied) said: The average rate for 1887–8 was 16·898 d. per rupee; the Budget rate is 16·9d.; and last week's rate 16·4d. It is, however, impossible to judge from the sale of bills for a single week what will be the average rate of exchange for the year, and whether the Estimates will be seriously disturbed.

  INLAND REVENUE—PROBATE DUTY IN ENGLAND AND WALES.
  MR. HOYLEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Statement showing the amount now contributed to the Imperial Revenue from personal property in the form of Probate Duty by each of the counties in England and Wales.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I regret that it is impossible to give such a Return as the hon. Member asks for. I should be very glad to possess, and make public, information as to the amount now contributed to the Imperial Revenue from personal property in the form of Probate Duty in each of the counties in England and Wales; but from the manner in which probate is taken out it is impossible to allocate the duty paid to the various counties.
  MR. HOYLEasked, Whether the Returns did not show where the property was situated on which Probate was paid?
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he did not know whether the accounts showed this or not; but certainly there was no classification. For instance, the amount of personal property might be in Foreign Bonds or in Colonial Bonds. It would be impossible to allocate the various forms of property possessed by a particular person to a county.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAMasked, Whether the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to give the total of Probate Duty, if not the details?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The total of the whole of the Probate Duty is, I think, £4,000,000, or thereabouts.

  CIVIL SERVICE—STAFF OF THE CHIEF OFFICIAL RECEIVER IN BANKRUPTCY—CERTIFICATES.
  MR. PRICEasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he will take the necessary steps to obtain Treasury sanction to the issue of Civil Service Certificates, under the provisions of the Order in Council dated the 4th of June, 1870, to such member of the staff of the Chief Official Receiver in Bankruptcy as he may recommend, and who may be within the meaning of that order?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The Board of Trade are willing to consider any recommendations which may be made to them by the Chief Official Receiver; but I regret that I cannot give such an undertaking as that referred to by the hon. Member.

  LICENSING DUTIES—SIX-DAY LICENCES—THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the abatement in the Licence Duties now allowed to those who voluntarily close on Sundays, or on other days one hour earlier than the law requires, will still be allowed under the licensing provisions of the Local Government Bill?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): The Local Government Bill will make no alteration in the law in reference to the matters to which the hon. Member's Question refers.

  THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—THE WHEEL TAX.
  COLONEL EYREasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether occupiers of small holdings who let out their carts to other small occupiers for agricultural purposes would be liable for the Wheel Tax for such carts?
  MR. GURDONasked, Whether county road surveyors, who in the exercise of their duty had to use their own or their neighbours' carts on the highway, would be liable to the tax?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I am asked by several Questions practically to interpret the clauses of the Bill, which is not finally drawn, and which is not yet before the House. It is somewhat difficult for me to answer all those Questions in detail, and I should be sorry to convoy any false impression. With regard to carts, I have to say that if they are let out solely for agricultural purposes they are exempt from the proposed Wheel Tax, to whomsoever they belong. I will consider the point suggested by my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Gurdon).

  THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—THE HORSE TAX.
  MR. CALEB WRIGHTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can lay upon the Table of the House an Estimate of the number of horses used for haulage that will be subject to the now Horse Tax; also the number of horses used for agricultural purposes that will be exempt from the Tax.
  MR. H. GARDNERasked, with reference to horses used for agricultural purposes, whether the right hon. Gentleman would take into consideration the case of farmers whose horses were mainly used for agricultural purposes, but occasionally for other purposes; and, whether he would make an exemption of one horse in the case of each occupier who worked his land for profit?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): When the Bill is laid before the House, hon. Members will have the opportunity of seeing to what extent the exemptions will be granted. It would be more convenient then to answer such Questions. I beg hon. Members on both sides of the House, with regard to these taxes, to consider whether they can see their way to postponing Questions for a week or 10 days, until I have had an opportunity of consulting the different deputations which I have to receive: it would facilitate any reply I have to make. In reply to the hon. Member who put the first Question, I have to say that no horse used exclusively for haulage will be subject to the new duty. By haulage, I mean the drawing of vehicles other than carriages. It is estimated that there are about 1,000,000 horses used for agricultural purposes that will be totally exempt.

  THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—THE HORSE TAX.
  MR. DARLINGasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is aware that many van owners keep vans and carts expressly for the purpose of lending them to tradesmen whose own vans and carts are temporarily under repair; and, whether, being substitutes merely for tax paying vehicles,
  856
  the vehicles so lent will be liable to the Tax?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I am afraid I do not see how any exemption can be made in this case; but, as I have stated, I shall have an opportunity of seeing some deputations and hearing their views on this subject. Of course, there must be exceptional cases in the operation of every tax.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1882, SECTION 12.
  COLONEL EYREasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he will consent to the introduction of a clause into the Local Government Bill repealing so much of Section 12 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, as refers to the disqualification of persons in holy orders and regular ministers of dissenting chapels from sitting on Councils?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): There will be no indisposition on the part of the Government to assent to an amendment of the Local Government Bill to the effect that Section 12 of the Municipal Corporations Act shall be excepted from the provisions of that Act which are to apply to the elections of the new Councils proposed to be constituted.

  RIVER THAMES—UNLOADING RUBBISH IN THE ESTUARY.
  MAJOR RASCHasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he is aware that barges are in the practice of loading rubbish from London and unloading in the estuary of the Thames between Southend and Leigh; that, in consequence, fishing grounds are spoilt, and nets torn up and destroyed, to the ruin of the fishing industry of the district; and, whether he is prepared to state what steps will be taken to stop this practice?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The Board of Trade have directed inquiries to be made by one of their Inspectors in the locality referred to by the hon. and gallant Member, and I hope to receive his Report in a few days.

  ADMIRALTY—THE DIRECTOR OF NAVAL CONSTRUCTION.
  SIR WILLIAM PLOWDENasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing the number of times the Director of Naval Construction has visited the Royal Dockyards at Home on duty in the course of the last two years; and, if he will furnish to the House a Report drawn up by the Director of Naval Construction as to the actual progress made in the building of ships in the several Dockyards as compared with their estimated advancement, the Report being made up to the end of the last financial year?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): I see no advantage in laying such a Return as the hon. Gentleman asks for in the first part of the Question. If he will read the Memorandum which I laid upon the Table of the House relating to the Navy Estimates, and look at the details of Vote 8, he will there find the information he requires.

  ADMIRALTY—THE DIRECTOR OF NAVAL CONSTRUCTION.
  SIR WILLIAM PLOWDENasked, Whether the Director of Naval Construction is directly responsible that new ships built or building in the Royal Dockyards are constructed in accordance with the designs, specifications, and weights as approved by the Board of Admiralty; and, whether he is required personally to inspect and certify from time to time, during the building or on the completion of such ships, that the progress of work on them (in accordance with approved designs, specifications, and weights) is commensurate with the recorded expenditure?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The duties of Director of Naval Construction are laid down at length in Parliamentary Paper C. 4,615 of 1886, page 5; and a perusal of those instructions will give more accurately than a short Parliamentary answer the duties of Director of Naval Construction and Director of Dockyards.

  COAL MINES REGULATION ACT, 1887— DISALLOWANCE OF SPECIAL RULES IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. PRESTON BRUCEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the statement appearing in The Times of the 9th instant, to the effect that he has refused his sanction to certain new Special Rules proposed for Fife, Clackmannan, and Stirlingshire, under the Mines Act, and objected to on the part of the miners, is correct.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The statement is not correct. I have received objections to the Special Rules in question, and they are now under consideration.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—THE DISTURBANCES IN KILRUSH—TRIAL OF PRISONERS—MR. IRWIN, R.M.
  MR. MAC NEILLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true, as stated in The Daily News, that at the time of the collision between the military and police and the people in the town of Kilrush on Sunday, all the military and police arrangements were under the supreme command of Mr. Irwin, Resident Magistrate; whether Mr. Irwin, in conjunction with Captain Welch, Resident Magistrate, tried on the 8th of November last, in the said town of Kilrush, under the provisions of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, in one batch, 18 persons, who were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, accompanied in some instances with hard labour and without power of appeal; and, whether Mr. Irwin has, between the 17th of August, 1887, and the 16th of March, 1888, tried in all 132 persons under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): It is the case that on the occasion in question Mr. Irwin was, as Resident Magistrate, in charge of the military and police. It also appears to be the case that he, in conjunction with Captain Welch, Resident Magistrate, tried a number of persons in No-

  859
  vember last at Kilrush charged with unlawful assembly. Several of them were sentenced to a month's imprisonment with hard labour; some were acquitted, and in a considerable number of the cases "no rule" was marked. There is no official record kept of the number of persons tried by Resident Magistrates.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Will the Government give a Return of the number?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That Question, or one like it, was asked early in the Session, and I declined to give it.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I want to know whether, under the administration of Earl Spencer, the judicial and executive offices of magistrates were not kept distinct?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: They were kept distinct, exactly as they are kept distinct now. I am not aware that there was any difference.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR,: I desire to ask the Chief Secretary, Whether the Captain Welch mentioned in the Question is the same magistrate who, in conjunction with Colonel Turner, at Ennis, committed an assault on the people last Sunday; whether the people who were sabred, wounded, and batoned by the orders of Captain Welch and Colonel Turner were already prisoners of war; whether they had surrendered and offered no resistance; whether, at the moment their names were being taken, Colonel Turner and Captain Welch ordered the soldiers to charge them with their swords and the police to beat them with their batons; whether the right hon. Gentleman has received any Report of the proceedings at Ennis last Sunday; and, if so, if he will give the House the benefit of that Report?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member has raised a large number of points in his Question of rather a novel character. He asks me whether certain persons at Ennis were not prisoners of war. My impression is that you can only have prisoners of war when two countries are at war with each other; and that I apprehend is not the case at the present moment in Ireland. The accounts I have of what passed at Ennis do not at all agree with the sketch which the hon. Gentleman has just given to the House.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us his account?
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the account of the correspondent of The Irish Times, who was wounded in the charge?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No; I have not seen that.
  MR. MAC NEILL: The right hon. Gentleman, I think, does not apprehend my Question. I want to know whether, under Earl Spencer's régime, the functions of the Resident Magistrates were kept distinct in this way—that the executive functions were wielded by some Resident Magistrates, and the judicial functions by others; and, whether Earl Spencer has not publicly stated that the union of the executive and judicial functions of Resident Magistrates would lead to grave mischief in the administration of public justice?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not acquainted with all Earl Spencer's utterances regarding the Crimes Act of 1882; but I should be extremely surprised to learn that Earl Spencer ever laid down a rule, never to be departed from, that because a magistrate tried prisoners in November he was, therefore, debarred from exercising the executive functions which every magistrate in England, Scotland, and Ireland possesses, in April of the following year.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Would I be in Order, Sir, in reading Earl Spencer's words?
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not think that the subject referred to arises out of the Question on the Paper.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I should like to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether he justifies the action of the Resident Magistrate and the commanding officer of the troops in attacking unarmed citizens after all resistance against the armed forces had ceased?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, all unnecessary attacks are to be deprecated.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: The right hon. Gentleman told us yesterday he had received no official information. I would ask him if he has now received it, and if he can tell the House what that information officially is?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On what special point?
  MR. BRADLAUGH: With reference to the attack on Sunday.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Which attack?
  MR. BRADLAUGH: The attack by the military and police on the people at Ennis, when several were wounded.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Does the hon. Gentleman mean the attack where one of the newspaper correspondents was hurt?
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Yes.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What I understand happened was this. There was an illegal assembly in a warehouse outside Ennis. The police assembled there to find out the names of the persons who were present; and when they were engaged in the exercise of their duty they were received with a shower of stones not only from the warehouse itself, but also from the neighbouring houses. Under these circumstances, the Resident Magistrates very properly ordered the police to charge.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I beg to give Notice that to-morrow I shall ask the right hon. Gentleman whether—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! If the hon. Gentleman will put that Question on the Paper in the usual way, no doubt it will be answered.
  MR. MACNEILL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that Colonel Turner telegraphed to the Editor of The Irish Times expressing his deep regret at the injuries which had been inflicted upon the correspondent of that journal?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am, of course, very glad to give all the information in my power to the House. I may point out that these Questions as to what occurred at Ennis are supposed to arise out of the Question on the Paper regarding Kilrush; but I do not press the point. I have no information that Colonel Turner telegraphed his regret. If he did, I have no doubt he felt it.
  Subsequently,
  MR. GILLasked the Chief Secretary, Whether his attention had been called to the statement of the wounded correspondent of The Irish Times, in which he says—
  "At the time I was standing in the doorway the 3rd Hussars were drawn up in front"—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is practically a Notice of a Question; and it is quite competent for the hon. Gentleman to put it upon the Paper.
  MR. GILL: But, Sir, with reference to the statement of the Chief Secretary that a shower of stones was thrown, I would call his attention to this specific statement—namely, that The Irish Times' correspondent says there was no disorder, no hooting or cheering, and no missile thrown.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My attention was not called to the article, as I think I stated before, and I have not seen it. But the statement which the hon. Gentleman has just made is in direct contradiction to the information which I have received, which indicates that the charge was a direct consequence of a shower of stones from the upper windows of the building.
  MR. GILL: As the right hon. Gentleman says his attention has not been called to the statement of the correspondent of The Irish Times, will he consider and examine that statement as being the statement of a reputable witness, one who was present on the occasion, and who suffered in the mêlée?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall, of course, be glad to examine that and any further statements which the hon. Gentleman may bring under my notice.
  MR. GILL: Then may I put one further Question to the right hon. Gentleman?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—ROUND-STONE (GALWAY).
  MR. FOLEYasked the Postmaster General, When it is intended to fill up the vacancy to the office of Postmaster at present existing at the Post Office of Roundstone (Galway), to relieve the inhabitants of the district from the great inconvenience of having to travel a distance of 10 miles to the neighbouring district of Clifden to obtain Post Office Orders or get them changed?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The Notice given by the hon. Member is not sufficient to enable me to procure certain information from Ireland, without which I am unable to answer the Question. I will endeavour to do on Friday.

  NATIONAL DEBT (CONVERSION) ACT— CHARITABLE FUNDS—THE CHARITY COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. F. S. POWELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Treasury to make Regulations under the National Debt (Conversion) Act, 1888, whereby the Charity Commissioners may on behalf of Trustees consent to the exchange of Consolidated Three per Cent Stock or Reduced Three per Cent Stock standing in the names of the official Trustees of Charitable Funds; and, if such be the intention, when it is proposed to make and publish the Regulations.
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): Such regulations have been made by the Treasury and communicated to the Charity Commissioners, and they will be published in to-day's Gazette, or in Friday's at the latest.

  COAL MINES REGULATION ACT, 1887— CONVICTION OF G. A. ARNOLD, AT WOLVERHAMPTON.
  MR. FENWICKasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether a man named George A. Arnold was tried at Wolverhampton, on the 28th of March last, for breaches of the Coal Mines Regulation Act; whether the prosecution was ordered by the Home Office; whether the following charges were proved against the defendant:—that there were not two means of egress from the mine; that no proper Reports of examination of the shaft had been made; that the top of the shaft was unfenced; if so, what was the total amount of penalties to which the defendant rendered himself liable; and, what was the amount of the fine imposed?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS),, in reply, said, the answer to the first three paragraphs was in the affirmative. As to the fourth paragraph, there were in all 12 charges proved against the defendant, who was liable to a maximum fine of £20 for each offence. As these were the first informations under the Coal Mines Regulation Act of last year, the stipendiary magistrate decided to impose small fines of 2s. 6d. in half the cases, and to dismiss the other half on payment of costs. The total fines paid, therefore, amounted to 15 s.

  THE MAGISTRACY (ENGLAND AND WALES)—THE ALNWICK BENCH— CONVICTION OF JOHN DOUGLASS AND JOSEPH WOLFENDALE FOR STEALING JETTISONED TIMBER.
  MR. FENWICKasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in the case of John Douglas and Joseph Wolfardale, who were convicted at Alnwick on December 31, 1886, the men were allowed "one month" in which to pay their fines; and, whether it was the duty of the magistrates at the end of the month to issue a warrant for their arrest and imprisonment in case the fine should not be paid; if so, whether he would state why the men were not imprisoned until 14 months after the date of their conviction?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am advised that the magistrates had power to allow extended time under the 7th section of the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879. I am informed by an experienced Metropolitan magistrate that the same course is continually adopted by magistrates in the interests of defendants.
  MR. FENWICKasked, why the warrant for the arrest of the men was not issued until 14 months after the date of their conviction?
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he understood that the magistrates were under the impression that the men could not pay the fine; and they, therefore, extended the period of the payment of the fine from time to time.
  MR. FENWICK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Douglas, one of the men now in prison, stated in Court that he was unable to pay, and that he would be less likely to be able to pay at the end of the month, seeing that a trade dispute was pending, and that he offered at that time to go to prison?
  MR. MATTHEWS: No, Sir; I have no information to that effect.
  MR. FENWICK: In consequence of the unsatisfactory answer I have received to this Question, I beg to give Notice that after Questions are disposed of I shall, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, move the adjournment of the House, in order to put the facts of the case on record.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—FAILURE OF MESSRS. GREENWAY, SMITH, AND GREENWAY, BANKERS, WARWICK AND LEAMINGTON.
  MR. COBBasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he can, without injury to the interests of justice, supplement the answer which was given by the former Secretary to the Board on the 10th of February, by stating what steps the Board are taking, and propose to take, as to the bankruptcy of Messrs. Greenway, Smith, and Greenway, bankers, of Warwick and Leamington?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): In answer to the Question of the hon. Member, I have to say that it is not in the interests of justice that I should make any further observations with regard to the case at present, than that the whole of the proceedings in the bankruptcy alluded to are having the most careful consideration of the Board of Trade.

  LOTTERIES ACTS—DRAWING OF TICKETS ON "PRIMROSE DAY."
  MR. COBBasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to the sale by the Barnoldswick Conservative Club of lottery tickets for prizes, which are to be drawn for on Primrose Day, April 19; whether any steps will be taken to prevent the lottery from being held; and, whether he can state how many lotteries promoted by Political Clubs or Societies, or for political purposes, have been actually prevented by the Director of Public Prosecutions during the present Session?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS)in reply, said, his attention had not been drawn to the lottery referred to otherwise than by the Question. If anything illegal were about to take place, it would be the duty of the Local Authorities to interfere. The Director of Public Prosecutions had since February 12 interfered in 12 cases. In two of these he had prosecuted successfully; in one the Local Authorities had prosecuted; in four cases the lotteries had been withdrawn, and the result in the remaining cases was not yet ascertained.
  MR. COBBasked, whether the Public Prosecutor would not interfere in this case? He had sent a ticket for the lottery to the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. MATTHEWS: The ticket has not reached me. When it does I will return it. The Director of Public Prosecutions has recently represented to me that it was extremely inconvenient for him to be called upon to take action in all these cases, and that it would be better, outside the Metropolis, to call the attention of the Local Authorities to them. I think there is weight in that representation; and I propose, unless the cases should be within the Metropolitan area, to leave the matter for the future to the Local Authorities.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (SCOTLAND)—NEW CODE, ARTICLE 21— GRANTS FOR COOKERY.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, If he would explain why the Scottish Education Department has restricted the conditions under which grants for cookery will be paid in Scotland under Article 21 of the New Code; whether this restriction will decrease the amount of the grant for cookery paid to Scotland, while it will remain unchanged in England, where no restriction is proposed; and, whether the Department has received any representations from school boards or teachers of cookery in Scotland as to the probable effect of Article 21 of the New Scottish Code in curtailing instruction in cookery in public schools?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The alteration in Article 21, restricting the class in which girls are taught to cook with their own hands to 12 scholars, was introduced into the Code of 1888 upon strong representations made by the cookery schools of Edinburgh and Glasgow, and the School Board of Edinburgh, that no greater number could be efficiently trained in the practical class by one teacher. The Department expects that the result of the alterations in the Article will be to increase the total amount of grant earned throughout Scotland, as well as to improve the efficiency of the training; particularly as another alteration has been made, by which a 2s. grant will be given for a cooking course limited to 24 instead of

  867
  40 hours. No representations have reached the Department as to the supposed probability of Article 21 of the Code of 1888 tending to curtail instruction in cookery in public schools, and it is not thought that this will be the result.
  MR. SINCLAIR, arising out of the Question, asked whether in those cases where classes had been formed under the Regulations and Rules of the Codes for last year, where the year of the school had not yet expired, the grant to be given would be given in accordance with the Regulations of the Code of last year, or in accordance with those in the Code for the present year?
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I am unable to answer the Question of the hon. Member.
  DR. CAMERON: In connection with that Question, would the First Lord of the Treasury say, whether an opportunity will be given for discussing the Code?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I answered a Question on this matter before the holidays, and then said that the Government would afford an opportunity under the Rules of the House before the date which was mentioned, and the hon. Gentleman is aware that a Motion can be made at any time after 12 o'clock.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)—RIOT AT CLASHMORE—A CASE OF HUGH MATHESON, COTTAR.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, with reference to the case of Hugh Matheson, at present undergoing 12 months' imprisonment for rioting at Clashmore, Sutherlandshire, Whether the Secretary for Scotland has yet investigated the statements contained in the five statutory declarations placed in his hands on the 15th ultimo, and showing that Matheson was not in the riot, but had been convicted in error; whether he has since received other statutory declarations to the same effect; whether the prisoners convicted at the same time as Matheson have made declarations as to his innocence; whether he has any objection to lay copies of the declarations in question upon the Table of the House; and, whether the persons who signed the declarations have been examined on
  868
  behalf of the Secretary for Scotland; and, if so, on what date?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The statements referred to have been considered, and inquiries are being made into the matter. Declarations have also been made by the prisoners who were convicted along with Matheson, and other declarations have been lately received. I must decline to lay any Papers on the Table of this House, or to state what steps are being taken by the Secretary for Scotland; but I can assure my hon. Friend that most earnest attention is being given to the matter.

  THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—THE YEOMANRY CAVALRY.
  MR. MILDMAYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will consider the desirability of remitting the Horse Tax in the case of horses ridden during permanent duty by those serving in the Yeomanry Cavalry?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): Yes, Sir; the Horse Duty will be repaid for such horses on proper proof being produced.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE—SERVICE AT THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will lay upon the Table a copy of the Police Regulation just issued by Sir Charles Warren with reference to the police in attendance upon this House?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS), in reply, said, that there was no objection to laying a copy of the Regulation on the Table.

  METROPOLIS—HACKNEY CARRIAGES —LICENCES AND TAX UPON CABS AND OMNIBUSES.
  MR. CREMERasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the cabs and omnibuses plying for hire in the Metropolitan Police District are subject to a police licence of £2 per year; whether the last annual Return showed that the revenue derived from police licences

  869
  during the year ended 31st March, 1887, amounted to £33,610 15 s. 2d.; who received the money; what check there is upon the expenditure; whether the original object with which the tax was imposed was to provide for a proper inspection of such vehicles; whether he will state the annual cost of such inspection; whether there was on the 31st March, 1887, standing to the credit of the police in the Bank of England and elsewhere a balance of £198,505 19 s. 9d.; in whose name the money is banked, and what is intended to be done with it; and, whether the proprietors of cabs pay in addition to the above-mentioned police licence, 15 s. per annum as Carriage Tax, and the proprietors of omnibuses £2 2s. per annum?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS)in reply, said, the cabs and omnibuses plying for hire in the Metropolitan Police District were subject to a police licence of £2 a-year, and that the revenue derived from this licence amounted last year to £33,610 15 s. 2d.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  MR. WHITMOREasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, with a view to shortening and simplifying the debate on the second reading of the Local Government Bill, he will give an assurance that, when Clause 35 is reached, adequate time will be given for the discussion of the general application of the Bill to the Metropolis.
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in reply, said, that ample opportunity would be given for the discussion of the questions affecting the Metropolis when Clause 35 was reached; and he could not doubt that that would be the best opportunity for dealing with all the Metropolitan questions in connection with the measure.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—JUDICIAL DISCRETION OF MAGISTRATES.
  MR. J. E. ELLISsaid, the Question which he had put upon the Paper seemed to have been slightly altered. The Question now stood—To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to a Circular recently ad-
  870
  dressed by Sir West Ridgeway, on behalf of the Lord Lieutenant, to the magistrates in Ireland, conveying the disapproval of His Excellency of short sentences of imprisonment, and suggesting that a certain class of prisoners should receive longer sentence of imprisonment; and, whether any interference by the head of the Executive in Ireland with the judicial discretion of magistrates has the sanction of the Government? He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant for Ireland simply whether such a Circular had been recently issued by Sir West Ridgeway?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The hon. Member now simply asks me whether such a Circular has been issued, and my reply is that such a Circular has been issued.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I wish to ask the whole Question.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member, in his Question, does not accurately convey the meaning of the Circular to which he refers. The main objects of the Circular were—(1) To bring the English and Irish practice more into harmony; (2) to save waste of time and money; (3) to induce magistrates to follow the course indicated by various statutes with regard to first offences or trivial offences, whereby terms of imprisonment which are injurious but not deterrent may be avoided. It is hardly necessary to add that the Circular has nothing to do with the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act of last year.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: I wish to ask whether, in addition to the motives which the right hon. Gentleman has explained as to the sending out of the Circular, there is not another, and whether that is not the one that at the present time the local gaols are principally occupied by National Leaguers, and that this is a hint to the magistrates not to be sending drunkards and the hardened classes of criminals into the gaols by sentencing them to imprisonment; and, also, whether it is not a fact that in Tralee Gaol at the present time the percentage of the criminal classes is only about 10; and, whether the hardened criminals are not going about the streets and boasting that the respectable people are all in

  871
  gaol and that there is no room for hem?
  [No reply.]

  IRISH LANDOWNERS—"PRINTED STATEMENT" OF GRIEVANCES.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the "printed statement" of the grievances of Irish landowners, dealing with their alleged right to compensation for losses owing to legislation, the extent of such losses, the constitution and working of the Land Commission, and other supposed grounds of complaint, which was placed in the hands of the Prime Minister by the deputation headed by the Duke of Abercorn on February 3 last?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I have not seen the statement referred to by the hon. Member; but I am unaware of any precedent for laying such a document on the Table: and if such a demand was granted it would open the door for requests for similar documents handed in by deputations on other subjects. Under these circumstances, I am unable to assent to the production of the statement.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND)— LEGISLATION.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will inform the House prior to, or upon, the second reading of the Local Government Bill, as to the proposals of the Government in reference to local government in Ireland?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): In answer to my hon. Friend, I have to say that the Government have already distinctly announced that it is not their intention to proceed with a Local Government Bill for Ireland in the course of the present Session. It must be obvious, I think, to the hon. Baronet that the time available this Session is already fully disposed of. There will, however, be no indisposition to extend to Ireland an improved system of local government, suited to its wants, when it is made clear that the people are prepared to receive and work it in a spirit of loyalty to the Crown and to the Constitution.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  SIR EDWARD WATKIN: I wish to ask whether the Government have finally made up their minds that they will not lay on the Table before the close of the Session their ideas of what should be the Bill to be introduced at the proper time for the local self-government of Ireland, in order that during the Recess it may be considered by the people?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think the hon. Baronet will see that such a course is most unusual. No precedent exists for it, and if it did it would be a most inconvenient precedent. I cannot undertake, under the circumstances, to lay such a Paper on the Table.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, by the answer he has just given to the hon. Baronet, he means to convey the impression that it would only be after 20 years of resolute government?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order order!

  PARLIAMENT—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE (1882)—RULE 2 (ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE).

    THE MAGISTRACY (ENGLAND AND WALES)—THE ALNWICK BENCH— CONVICTION OF JOHN DOUGLASS AND JOSEPH WOLFENDALE FOR STEALING JETTISONED TIMBER.
    MR. FENWICK, Member for the Wansbeck Division of Northumberland, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., the imprisonment of John Douglass and Joseph Wolfendale.
    The pleasure of the House not having been signified,
    MR. SPEAKERcalled on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen:—
    MR. FENWICKsaid, he was sorry to take a course which might appear unreasonable to a portion of the House, and he apologized for any inconvenience that might be caused to Public Business by his action in moving the Adjournment. His justification lay in the fact that he was

    873
    actuated by a strong sense of duty towards some of his constituents who were implicated in this matter, and were sufferers in connection with it. He wished to state that he did not attach any responsibility to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the State for the Home Department (Mr. Matthews) in the matter. The men now in prison were suffering in consequence of the action of the magistrates; and the information which the right hon. Gentleman had given him in answer to Questions had been obtained from official sources. On the 23rd of March he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether it was true that on the 31st of December, 1886, five men and one girl were convicted before the Alnwick Bench for having in their possession some pieces of jettisoned timber. The answer was—"I am informed that five men and a girl were convicted on the 22nd of December, 1886." The fact was, they were convicted on the 31st of December, and not on the 22nd, the date given to the Home Secretary by the Clerk to the Justices. The right hon. Gentleman further said that on the 10th of March, three of the men having paid the fine, the Justices issued commitments against the rest, the girl having paid on the 17th. He wished to know what was the difference between a warrant for commitment and the issue of the warrant for arrest, because he was informed by the Governor of Newcastle Prison that the date of the warrant on which he held the prisoners in question was the 1st of March, and not the 10th, as stated by the Home Secretary. During the Recess he went down to Alnwick and collected information on the spot, so that the facts he would give to the House were facts collected from witnesses on the spot, who were engaged at the time in recovering the timber from the vessel that was stranded on the coast of Northumberland on the 21st of December, 1886. On that date a vessel carrying timber was stranded near the colliery village of Ratcliffe. The people of the district were soon on the spot ready to render any assistance in their power in order to rescue the crew from the stranded vessel. In order to lighten the vessel, with a view to getting her off as soon as possible, the timber which she carried was thrown into the sea, and the fishermen and miners were soon engaged
    874
    in endeavouring to recover the timber from the sea. The fishermen stacked the timber on the links. The miners, unfortunately, instead of stacking the timber on the links, carried the timber to their homes, where it was afterwards found. There was no attempt on the part of these men to conceal the fact that they had carried the timber to their homes; indeed, concealment was impossible, because it was found there by the policeman who searched their premises; but that they had stolen the timber they absolutely denied. He was prepared to admit that the men did wrong in taking the timber from the links to their homes; but that they deliberately and wilfully, and with criminal intent, stole the timber he absolutely denied. The magistrates themselves bore testimony to the fact that the men in Court denied that they had stolen the timber. The information which the magistrates sent to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary distinctly stated that there was no evidence whatever that the men had stolen the timber; and that statement, taken side by side with the denial of the men, showed that there was at least primâ facie evidence that the men were not guilty of the charge of which they were convicted before the magistrates on the 31st of December, 1886. This, however, was not the strong point in his case. When a conviction was returned against these men they were sentenced to a month's imprisonment, with the alternative of fine, they being at the same time offered a month within which to pay the fine. The magistrates in their information corroborated his (Mr. Fenwick's) statement that at the end of a month Douglass and Wolfendale being still unable to pay their fines went to the sergeant of police, told him of their inability to pay, and surrendered themselves to go to prison. At that time an industrial dispute was existing between the miners of Northumberland and their employers, which culminated in a strike lasting for 17 weeks. During the period of that strike these men went on two occasions to the sergeant of police and surrendered themselves to suffer the month's imprisonment inflicted by the magistrates. On both occasions the sergeant refused to take them to prison. It was quite true he was not in possession of the commit-

    875
    ment warrant, but surely it was his duty to inform the magistrates that these men were unable or unwilling to pay and had surrendered themselves. Seventeen weeks were allowed to elapse, and the men after being some little time in employment were again pressed for the amount of the fine, although they had over and over again offered themselves to go to prison. Wolfendale's wife offered the police sergeant 20s. towards the fine. That was refused, and on a subsequent occasion, when she had 35 s., she said to the sergeant she supposed it was no use offering him that or anything short of the full amount of the fine of £2. The right hon. Gentleman said the police sergeant had no power to receive any instalments from either Wolfendale or his wife, but surely the whole object of the magistrates in giving the men time was to enable them to pay by instalments. There was at least strong presumptive evidence in this case that the whole of the proceedings had been characterized by vindictiveness. He had the permission of the manager of the colliery where Douglass was employed to make this statement, that when he asked the sergeant of police why he did not arrest the men when they were unable to pay and offered to go to prison, the reply of the sergeant was that he would take the men at his own time, and not at the time when they thought fit to go to prison. This statement proved conclusively that there was vindictiveness in this case, if not on the part of the magistrates, at least on the part of the sergeant of police. Under what statute did the magistrates derive their authority to delay the arrest of men who had been convicted 14 months previous? The moment the men obtained employment they were bullied by the policeman for the amount of the fine, and the fine not being forthcoming at the end of 14 months, they were shackled together like common felons, and removed in the early morning, before they had time to break their fast, to Newcastle Gaol, there to undergo their month's imprisonment. He thought the statement he had made was altogether at variance with the information given to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and before sitting down he would appeal to him whether, considering all the circumstances of the case and in consequence of the great hardship
    876
    that had been entailed upon the wives and families of these men, he would not favourably consider a mitigation of the sentences which they had been ordered to undergo? If the right hon. Gentleman were to take this course it would do much to allay the suffering and the bitterness of feeling that had been engendered in the district. He begged to move the adjournment of the House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Fenwick.)
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS)said, he presumed the principal object of the hon. Member was accomplished by having the statement made and the facts put on record. The information on which he based his answer to the Question was derived not from the magistrates, but from the magistrates' clerk, and it did not agree on all points with the statement the hon. Member had made, although the differences were not material. The men were not prosecuted for stealing timber, but for having it in their possession. The prosecution was under a clause of the Consolidation Act of 1861 relating to the possession of articles belonging to a ship or vessel in distress, wrecked, or stranded. In this case notices had been published all along the coast, so that none could be in ignorance of the law. The prosecution was instituted by the Receiver of Wrecks, on behalf of the Board of Trade, and he pressed for a conviction specially on the ground that the notice had been published. There could be no doubt—the hon. Member himself admitted it—that the articles were found on the premises of the defendants.
    MR. FENWICK: The magistrates said there was no evidence the articles had been stolen.
    MR. MATTHEWS: The sworn evidence before the magistrates was that the timber found upon the premises of the prisoners was not taken out of the sea, but was taken from piles that had been stacked on the links by the fishermen. From these piles 100 pieces were missed, and some of the timber found in the possession of the prisoners was identified by the marks upon it as having been removed from these stacks. The evidence certainly warranted the

    877
    conclusion of the magistrates, and the punishment was not excessive. The penalty imposed was £2, whereas it might have been £20. He could not join issue with the hon. Member as to the action of the magistrates and police. Their conduct, so far from being harsh, was one of unusual leniency. The 7th section of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, gave the magistrates jurisdiction to extend the time for paying the fine, and one of the oldest and most experienced of the Metropolitan magistrates had informed him that it was usual to exercise this discretion for the convenience of defendants.
    MR. FENWICK: Against the will of a defendant?
    MR. MATTHEWSsaid, the accused men took the wrong course in speaking to the police sergeant, who had no power either to accept or remit the fine or to commit the men to prison, but he considered the sergeant as being to blame for not having brought the matter under the notice of the magistrates. The information he had was that no statement was ever made by the men to the magistrates that they would prefer to go to prison because they could not pay the fine.
    MR. FENWICKsaid, that Douglass stated in Court that he was unable to pay.
    MR. MATTHEWSsaid, the magistrates gave them longer time to pay out of pure kindness and consideration, knowing that they were then out on strike. The magistrates felt that they could not remit the fine, because that would not be fair to other defendants who were brought up at the same time and fined for a similar offence. He quite agreed that it was a considerable hardship upon the men to be taken off to prison just as they were getting into work again, but he was bound to say that, looking carefully into the case, it did not strike him that there was any intentional hardship. The error was in the men making their communication to the police sergeant instead of going direct to the magistrates. Although he did blame the police sergeant for not having brought the matter to the notice of the magistrates, he was bound to say, in justice to the magistrates, that he could not see that any blame whatever attached to them. He fully recog-
    878
    nized the right of the hon. Member to put on record the grievance in this case, but he must feel that evidence brought before the House was hardly evidence on which he (Mr. Matthews) could act. But, if the hon. Member would furnish him with the affidavits in his possession, he would consider whether it was possible for him to remit any part of the sentence the men had to undergo.
    MR. BURTsaid, he was of opinion that his hon. Friend had made out a case for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who, he thought, might well adopt the suggestion that had been made. He thought the men in this instance had been hardly treated. The real grievance was that 14 months were allowed to elapse before the men were taken off to prison. He considered that the right hon. Gentleman would be fully justified in remitting the remainder of the sentence. He failed to see, however, that any useful purpose would be secured by pressing the Motion to a Division.
    MR. FENWICKasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would take into consideration all the peculiar circumstances of the case with a view to remitting the remainder of the men's terms of imprisonment?
    MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he must repeat what he had said on former occasions, that he could not give any promise on matters of this kind across the floor of the House; but if the hon. Gentleman laid any materials before him bearing on the case he would consider them fully and with due consideration.
    MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, that he did not think the right hon. Gentleman could be expected to say more at present than he had done. He would advise his hon. Friend to lay before the right hon. Gentleman any materials which he might have, and after the assurance which had been given he could not doubt that the right hon. Gentleman would take them into his careful consideration. For his (Mr. John Morley's) own part, he thought that his hon. Friend was justified in calling the attention of the House to the very severe and undoubted hardship of this case.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  MR. CONYBEARE—A PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I desire, Mr. Speaker, to make a personal explanation in reference to a statement which was made in my absence, during the debate on the Address, by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I may say that I was in South Africa at the moment. The right hon. Gentleman commented upon some remarks which I am alleged to have made at Castlereagh, and he used words in reference to them which exactly exemplified my own case, for he said that the reference which had been made to Lord Carnarvon was most unfortunate, seeing that at the time it was made the noble Lord was at the other end of the world. The Chief Secretary said that the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall had stated at Castlereagh—"You are justified as Christians not to pay rent, whether it be a fair rent or not." I wish to take the earliest opportunity of repudiating the charge, and of denying that I ever said anything of the kind. I am glad to see the Chief Secretary in his place, and I am anxious to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman and the House that, whatever I may have said in the course of the several speeches I delivered in Ireland, I did not make use of any statement which might be converted into such a sentiment. What I always insisted upon was this—that men must not be blamed if they refuse to pay rent which cannot be made out of the land; and I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that that is a totally different sentiment to that which I am charged with having uttered. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the speech as one which I delivered at Westport; but it was one which was made by me at Castlereagh. His statements in reference to Westport are altogether inaccurate. He said that I had always advocated the Plan of Campaign, and that I had compared myself to Burghley and Hampden, who did not hesitate to cut off the King's head. Now, everybody knows that Burghley had nothing to do with the cutting off of the King's head, and that Hampden lost his life some years before King Charles lost his head. The right hon. Gentleman must, therefore, see that there must have been a mistake in the report. I have only
  880
  troubled the House with these statements in order to draw attention to the exceeding laxity with which reports of speeches by Government officials in Ireland are made. It is quite apparent that a danger may exist of instituting prosecutions and of sending men to prison for having made statements which they did not in reality make.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)was understood to say that the passages which had been quoted by the hon. Member were founded on reports supplied by shorthand writers. If, however, the hon. Member repudiated the statements attributed to him, of course he (Mr. Balfour) accepted that repudiation.
  MR. T. P. GILLsaid, that upon a future day he would call attention to the subject.

MOTIONS.

  FISHERY DEPARTMENT (BOARD OF TRADE).—RESOLUTION.
  SIR EDWARD BIRKBECK: I rise for the purpose of calling attention to the present constitution of the Fishery Department of the Board of Trade, and the necessity for persons having practical knowledge of the fisheries of the country being associated with the same; and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the Fishery Department of the Board of Trade as now constituted is not in accordance with the scheme by which the control of the fisheries was transferred to the Board of Trade, and, in order to carry out that scheme and to secure the proper management and development of the fisheries of England and Wales, they should be placed under an authority comprising, in addition to the officials of the Board of Trade, persons with practical knowledge of the Sea and Inland Fisheries."
  It may be asked why I should trouble the House with a matter which was fully gone into two years ago. My answer is, that my proposal which was made in March, 1886, has not been carried out as regards the question of practical men being associated with the Fishery Department of the Board of Trade, and as was agreed upon by my right hon. Friend the then President of the Board of Trade. There is no necessity for going into the matter at any great length, nor is it necessary to refer to the

  881
  importance of our fisheries; but it si desirable that I should refer to certain acts in connection with the fishing industry, as there are many hon. Members present in this Parliament who were not Members of the last Parliament, and whose constituents are, no doubt, interested in the question. I think the House will agree with me as to the importance of our fisheries, whether as regards the food supply of the country, and the hard-working and brave men who are engaged in the fishing industry around our coast, or whether we regard it as a nursery for the Navy, or the safety of the lives of our fishermen. I trust that all will admit that on these grounds steps should be taken to encourage the great fishing industry, and not let foreigners supply our markets with fish instead of our own fishermen. In order to carry out that object, it is most important that we should have an efficient and practical Fishery Department in England, not inferior in any way to those of foreign mercantile nations, but, as I should wish, superior. If the fishing industry is not considered of sufficient importance and magnitude to allow of a thoroughly organized and efficient Department, well and good; but I should like to hear the arguments of any hon. Member who will say so. The total value of fish landed in the United Kingdom last year was no less than £7,700,000, exclusive of sprats, whitebait, trout, eels, and other fresh water fish. There is also a doubt whether the statistics supplied from time to time are correct, and in my opinion the figures I have quoted are much below the mark. Four years ago Mr. Spencer Walpole quoted the annual value at £10,000,000. No less than 250,000 men are employed in the fisheries of the United Kingdom, and there are at the present time 45,254 boats engaged in the sea fisheries. When I referred to the matter in March, 1886, I pointed out the necessity of practical men being associated with the Fishery Board as a Fishery Department, and I made a special point of that. My right hon. Friend alluded in his speech to the importance of that point. I also referred to the unfortunate state of affairs which then existed, and to the fact that the Government Departments which had to do with the fisheries of the United Kingdom were scattered, and had not the advantage of one Central Department. I also referred to the importance
  882
  of employing a certain number of cruisers under the control of the Fishery Department to protect the fisheries in the same way as cruisers are now employed by the Scotch Fishery Board. What has been done since my Resolution was discussed in this House? There has been a transfer of the Fishery Department from the Home Office to the Board of Trade. An Assistant Secretary, Mr. Swanston, has been appointed, and three Inspectors, Mr. Barrington, Mr. Malan, and Mr. Fryer. The fishery interest, however, is waiting for the appointment of practical men in the Department, and my impression is that it will have to wait unless the Government take up the matter and assist the fishing interest. As regards the Vote for the Department, it has been increased but very little. I mentioned, on the former occasion, that the American Government voted annually no less a sum than £50,000, as compared with the paltry £1,500 or £1,600 we voted in England. One of the actions taken by the new Fishery Department was taken in February last, when the Department invited a conference of Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen of the Board of Conservators of the Inland Fisheries, and they were addressed by the President of the Board of Trade. No results, however, of any consequence were forthcoming. I wish to say that I am still in favour of a Statutory Board as compared with a Fishery Department. My right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Mundella) stated in March, 1886, that he did not see his way to recommend the appointment of a Statutory Board, and he said that there were objections to it. The House, however, will recollect that the Royal Commission on Trawling reported in favour of a Statutory Board with certain powers. It is not necessary to read the recommendations of that Commission, as they are well known. One of the objections related, I imagine, to a question of finance. There is a very strong feeling indeed around the coast of England that the great herring fisheries should have the same, privileges and advantages which are already possessed by Scotland—namely, a brand for the herring fishery and one on the West of England for pilchards. The revenue derivable from such brand would be no less than from £6,000 to £8,000 a-year, and that sum would be available for a Statutory Board to carry out their most useful work.

  883
  My own opinion is that it ought to be assisted in a substantial way by the Treasury. I may be asked what can be done to give satisfaction to the fishery interest in this matter? There is a strong feeling in the trade that reform is needed in the Fishery Department, and an important conference has been held in London this year of representatives from all parts of the country, in which this feeling was strongly expressed. They did not want to have a repetition of the blunders of the past, but that the real requirements of the trade should be ascertained and dealt with in a practical manner. If the Department were made efficient, or if there were a Statutory Board, I believe that a great deal of expense might be saved with reference to the inquiries which are now held, from time to time, in different parts of the country. Practical men connected with the trade would be able to render the greatest assistance to any Government with reference to any international question which might arise. I may mention a matter which arose last autumn. A proposal was made in a friendly way by the Belgian Government to put a stop to trawling at night within certain limits in the North Sea, and to assign stated times for drift-net fishing. Practical men would have at once informed the Belgian Government that no such course could be adopted; but for a considerable time the question was left undecided, and the Belgian Government were left in doubt as to what our views were. Practical men would have said at once that the proposal could not be entertained. Then there are other questions upon which practical men could give great assistance to the Government, such as the question of inshore trawling. Trawling within the three-mile limit, the capture of immature fish, the conveyance of fish from the captor to the consumer, and the question of close time at the fisheries, can only be settled by men of practical experience. The question of practical men being associated with the Government is not a new point; because the Board of Trade, six years ago, adopted the principle in consequence of the disastrous blunders made in reference to international lights on fishing vessels, when they had to send to Grimsby and Yarmouth for practical men to get them out of the
  884
  difficulties into which they had fallen from ignorance; and in "another place," in the course of the present Session, the Board of Trade have introduced the Merchant Shipping (Life Saving Appliances) Bill. That Bill has been read a second time, and one of the proposals it contains is that a Committee should be constituted consisting of three shipowners, three shipbuilders, three persons practically acquainted with the navigation of vessels—three persons who are, or have been, able-bodied seamen, and three persons selected from Lloyd's Register. Here we have a proposal put forward by the Board of Trade for appointing practical men in matters connected with navigation. I am afraid the House will think that I am going to place the cart before the horse, but hon. Members will see my reason directly. I hold very strongly that there ought to be Local Councils at all our principal fishing ports or fishing districts around the coast of England; that such self-elected Councils might have certain defined powers, and be subject to the control either of Parliament or the Board of Trade. Among other matters, these Local Councils should have power to investigate such vexed questions as those of inshore trawling, and trawling within the three-mile limit, and they should, further, administer the Crab and Lobster Act, as well as ascertain the state of the mussel beds, and even the investigation of outrages, which, unfortunately, are sometimes committed. The Board of Trade, if that were done, would be saved the expense of sending down Inspectors to hold inquiries, and the Councils would be able to furnish fuller and more accurate statistics than those which are now supplied by the Board of Trade. Unfortunately, the statistics now supplied are not as accurate as they ought to be, and the Local Councils I propose would be able to assist in that matter with more advantage. I would further recommend that the Board of Trade official at the fishing district should be a representative of the Local Councils, and that the Councils should hold office three years. I would further suggest that the Chairman or Deputy Chairman should be periodically summoned to the Central Board in London, to form, in conjunction with a naval officer, a Consultative Committee,

  885
  so that the Board of Trade might obtain the services of practical men. The Board would be summoned from time to time to a monthly or quarterly meeting, or whenever any matter of urgency or importance occurred, and their expenses would be paid. The House will now see why I have put the cart before the horse. In that way a Consultative Committee would be formed; and I would further suggest that a naval officer should be attached to the Fishery Board, or to the Consultative Committee, and that the present Inspector of Fisheries should receive orders from that Board. I think the Board might have statutory powers to enable it to make bye-laws, and should also possess the other useful powers which the Irish and Scotch Members have, which powers have proved to be of great use. I would further extend such powers, and I should be glad to see more direct communication between the now Department and the Admiralty and Foreign Office. At present there is much delay in carrying out any proposal, and the loss of time involved is a cause of serious inconvenience when Parliament is not sitting. I have only dealt with the sea fisheries; but in regard to the inland fisheries, considering the importance, for instance, of the salmon fisheries of this country, there are certainly matters connected with them which ought not to be trifled with, but ought to have some representation on the new Fishery Board. For instance, it might be advisable to divide England into districts, so that the salmon fisheries should be under the control of inland boards, which might be associated with the new Department. At present, the Salmon Fishery Board complain that their interests have not been studied as they ought to be at the hands of the Board of Trade. It may be thought that I am crying down the officers connected with the Board of Trade. All I have to say is that that is the last thing that I wish to do. I believe that Mr. Swanston is a very able man; that he has done the utmost in his power, and that he has given great satisfaction. The same may be said of his colleagues, Mr. Barrington, Mr. Malan, and Mr. Fryer; but still they are not the practical men whom the fishery interests desire. I gather from the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the Trea-
  886
  sury was the main obstacle in 1886 in making a Statutory Fishery Board. If that was the case, it was an obstacle which ought to be removed at once. I believe that my right hon. Friend opposite will be with me on this question. Last autumn he went down to Lowestoft. I will not refer to the remarks he made in reference to Home Rule; but in regard to the fisheries he said—
  "He desired to obtain information as to the formation of a Fishery Board, that should be in constant touch with the fisheries and fishermen around the coast. It seemed to the right hon. Gentleman that many of the mistakes which had been made in the past were due to the fact that the authorities in London, however well-intentioned, had not been in touch with the localities."
  I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend said, and I believe that the fishing interest agrees with it too. I believe there are very strong grounds for reform in the direction I have indicated, and I claim that the fishing industry must not be allowed to suffer for want of an honest attempt to bring this proposal about. We should see whether in the case of this fishing interest, or of agriculture, we ought longer to put up sham Departments. What we want is a practical element, and I should like to see the present Government have the credit of carrying out what the fishermen have so long asked for, and what my right hon. Friend, in two or three passages of his speech in answer to my Motion in 1886, intimated that he was so anxious of supporting—namely, the policy of associating practical men with a Fishery Department. Taking into consideration the great things which are about to be done in connection with local government in England, I think it is desirable that the Local Councils I have suggested should forthwith be established by the State, and that a Fishery Board, or a Fishery Department, should be formed in the way I have proposed. With these remarks, I wish to move the Resolution which stands in my name.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: In rising to second the Motion which has been moved by the hon. Member for East Norfolk (Sir Edward Birkbeck), I cannot say that I have the same anxiety that the proposal he has made should be carried out by the present Government, or that they should have the credit of the reform now

  887
  asked for. I naturally do not feel the same interest in that direction as that which is felt by the hon. Member; but, at the same time, I am aware, from experience, what a pressing question this is, and I think it is emphatically not a Party question. I am afraid that it is one which has not excited the opposition of either of the two great political Parties; and, therefore, it might have failed to arouse a sufficient amount of interest in either of them to enable them to deal with it. I wish, from my own personal experience, to offer a few remarks in enforcing the necessity for something being done. The hon. Member for East Norfolk has studied the question more than I have, and he is much more able to advise the House as to the best practical mode of dealing with the question. At the present moment the fishing population is scattered up and down our coast, and is in a state of great disaster. In my own part of England the suffering and misery which they have undergone has been a byeword among the community. The fishermen and their families are, indeed, unable to get a living; and it is a matter of common remark that they are being crushed out of existence by a slow process of starvation. The fishermen themselves are unanimous on, at all events, some of the remedies they wish to be applied to their trade, such as trawling, the size of the meshes of the net, railway rates, close time, and so forth. The fishermen are quite unanimous on some of these questions; upon others they differ, having their own opinions; but, at the present moment, they are perfectly convinced that no one in authority practically understands their wants, and they are also, I am sorry to say, fully convinced that no one in authority cares about them. The fishermen are convinced of this, and I do not think their conviction is unjustifiable. People sometimes meet the question by saying that the fishing trade is necessarily depressed, as all other trades are, and that there is no practical remedy for it. At any rate, nothing has, so far, been done; and this House has no knowledge as to what it is possible to do and what is not possible. Only two or three years ago, a Commission was appointed to investigate the trawling question, a most important question indeed, and that Commission made a most moderate Re-
  888
  port; but, nevertheless, I believe that not one of its recommendations has been carried into effect. The fishermen think that they have suffered from want of regulation; and they want to see some new life infused into the Fishery Board, by placing practical men upon it, who shall have full power to deal with fishery questions affecting their interest. The right hon. Gentleman who was President of the Board of Trade in 1886 said he trusted that the Department would be so arranged in future that there would be no difficulty in insuring prompt attention for every question. I do not think that that is enough. There should not only be a Department established for regulating the fisheries, but it should be one in which the fishermen themselves should have confidence. At this moment the fishermen on many parts of the coast do not know of the existence of such a Department at all, and they never will until they are called to take some active part in getting men whom they know and trust appointed in the Fishery Department of the Board of Trade. I do not suppose that the Government will meet this Resolution in a hostile spirit. On the contrary, I have every confidence that the Government will meet it in a satisfactory way, and will propose something that may adequately meet the wishes of the hon. Member for East Norfolk. But we all know that when a Bill is introduced into Parliament its fate is very doubtful. Many of the Bills which are introduced cannot possibly be carried into effect. Therefore, I ask the House to consider what this trade is that is suffering so much at the present moment, and see whether it is not an industry which, more than any other, needs the active sympathy and support of the House. Although it cannot be called skilled labour, it is, at all events, self-educated labour; and with regard to the objection of expense in connection with the public funds, it must be recollected that so far the fishing interest has made very few demands on the public purse. They make no demands for education and grants in aid; they turn out every year a large body of men, thoroughly efficient in their own trade, and it must not be forgotten that being trained to a seafaring life they cannot migrate with the same case as other classes to our big towns, where, indeed, they would be

  889
  greatly handicapped. Their occupation has always been on the sea; their trade is a precarious one; and the plant necessary to enable them to carry on their trade is extremely expensive, and is liable to frequent accidents. They are themselves a hardy race of men, and, moreover, they are law-abiding, and give little trouble. All they desire is to prosecute their trade so as to enable them to earn a fair livelihood. Therefore, I wish the House to take into consideration the misery these men are now suffering, and to believe that it is not the less because it does not find any great expression. I feel bound to give, not only sympathy, but a warm support to the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for East Norfolk. The demand of my hon. Friend on the part of the fishermen has been put forward in a manner which cannot be offensive to any quarter of the House, or any class of the community, and I should be sorry to see another Session pass without the question being thoroughly attended to. I hope that another Session will not be allowed to pass without effective assistance being rendered by the Legislature to a class which most needs its care. Upon these grounds, I beg to second the Resolution.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the Fishery Department of the Board of Trade as now constituted is not in accordance with the scheme by which the control of the fisheries was transferred to the Board of Trade, and in order to carry out that scheme and to secure the proper management and development of the fisheries of England and Wales, they should be placed under an authority comprising, in addition to the officials of the Board of Trade, persons with practical knowledge of the Sea and Inland Fisheries."—(Sir Edward Birkbeck.)
  MAJOR RASCHsaid, he thought it was high time that a Board of practical men should be organized in order to protect and look after the fishing industry. This industry was overweighted in two ways; the North Sea fishermen were heavily handicapped by the excessive differential rates charged by the Railway Companies, and those in the estuary of the Thames by the fact that their nets were destroyed and their fishing grounds ruined by the abominable practice of barges loaded with rubbish discharging it between Southend and Leigh. Unless some remedy were devised like that indicated
  890
  by the hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Birkbeck), the British fishermen would disappear, and with them would also go the Royal Naval Reserve, so that ultimately we should have to depend upon the foreigner for the supply of fish as well as for the supply of bread.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, there was a strong feeling among the fishermen upon the North-East Coast that their interests were neglected by Government. The fishing interest got crushed out whenever there was pressure of business at the Board of Trade, and he doubted whether anything had been gained by the Fishery Board being made a Department of the Board of Trade. In the many questions which of late years had interested the fishing industry they had always found a great want of knowledge on the part of the Board of Trade. He believed that if practical men connected with the trade had the opportunity of fairly bringing their opinions forward, it would be exceedingly useful to the President of the Board of Trade on many occasions. He went further than his hon. Friend the Member for East Norfolk (Sir Edward Birkbeck), and contended that there should be a distinct Department for Trade, Agriculture, and Fishing, and be free from the action of the Privy Council, of which the Board of Trade was only a Committee. There should be Councils at the fishing ports, with Chairmen who could correspond with the Head Department in London, and the President of the Board of Trade would be able to come to more rapid decisions upon the important questions submitted to him. He did not think that they would do much as long as the fishing industry was looked after by what was merely a Sub-Department tacked on to the Board of Trade. The Admiralty and the Foreign Office sometimes stepped in after the Board of Trade was ready and willing to grant what was asked by the fishermen. The consequence was a great loss of valuable time, although both the Admiralty and the Foreign Office were willing to do their best. Although he wished to go further than what was proposed by the hon. Baronet, at the same time he considered that these proposals would be an instalment that would prove of much good to the fishing industry. He begged to support the Motion of his hon. Friend.
  MR. MALLOCKsaid, he was not able to speak with the knowledge and authority of his hon. Friend the Mover of the Resolution. But as representing a constituency in which there was a large number of fishermen he desired to support the Resolution. Difficulties were constantly cropping up which he believed might easily be settled by some such Local Council as that proposed. There were constantly complaints of the interference of one class of fishermen with another, which interference was very awkward sometimes for the Member representing the constituency in which it occurred. Various questions, and very interesting questions, often arose with regard to the destruction of immature fish, which would be dealt with by such a Department as his hon. Friend suggested. A Department such as this, too, would deal with statistics, and he thought that if they had had fishery statistics at their demand, the vexed question of railway rates might have been dealt with long before this. It was well known that the fishing trade in all parts of the country suffered very much from the heavy railway rates that were now charged. He reminded the House that it was not only the fishermen themselves who were interested in this question, but that there were a large number of trades connected with fishing—such as rope making, net making, and boat building interested in it. On the prosperity of the fishing interest also depended the prosperity of a very large number of artizans who were living along our coast. He most cordially supported the Resolution.
  SIR SAVILE CROSSLEYsaid, he desired, as a Representative of one of the most important fishing constituencies in the country, to support the Motion. The fishing interest was deeply interested in the hon. Baronet's suggestion being carried out, and he trusted the Government would see their way to adopt the Motion, and so prevent the necessity of persons being driven from the Foreign Office to the Board of Trade, and from the Board of Trade to the Admiralty, when any fishery question cropped up.
  MR. BOLITHOsaid, that inasmuch as he came from a part of England where fishing was carried on to a great extent, he thought he
  892
  would not be true to his colours if he did not say how necessary it was that something should be done to promote the interests of the fishing industry. It was well known—for it had often been stated—that the fishermen of England and Scotland were suffering most acutely at the present moment. Of course, legislation would not altogether work a cure; but there was no doubt that it could do much to alleviate the condition of our fishermen. He was fully persuaded that if the suggestion which had been made by his hon. Friend the Member for East Norfolk (Sir Edward Birkbeck)—who had shown himself in the past such a true friend of everything connected with the fishing industry—were carried out, good would be reaped by the people of this country. He could not think, in view of the spirit which actuated the Government in relation to measures affecting all classes of the people, they would turn a deaf ear to the suggestions which had been made, but would not only be disposed to adopt the proposition now made, but to give it practical effect.
  MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, that two years ago, as a Member of the Royal Commission on Trawling, he went closely into all the questions connected with the fishing industry, and he then came to the conclusion that the settlement of these questions would best be promoted by the establishment of a Fishery Board, which would have power to make recommendations, and to secure to each particular class of fishermen the quiet exercise of his own sort of fishing. That opinion he then formed he still held, and he was confident that it would be a great advantage to the fishermen of England to have the same advantages as the Scottish and the Irish fishermen possessed by the establishment of a Fishery Board. The three Irish Fishery Inspectors had the very largest powers of regulating all the fisheries in the territorial waters, and regulating the manner in which the fishermen should carry on their vocation on the Irish coasts. The idea of the Commission certainly was that the time would come when the fisheries of England and Scotland would be united under one Board, which should have power to make bye-laws and regulations with regard to the whole of the fisheries of the United Kingdom; and,

  893
  from the tone of the discussion, he felt certain that such a united Board would be most beneficial to the fishing industry. The variety of the fisheries was so great that it was perfectly impossible to deal with them in little bits and small portions of the country; they must have a large-minded central body that was able to take cognizance of all the various aspects of the case, and to make general regulations for the fisheries of the whole Kingdom. He was afraid that this could not be done by such local bodies—as had been proved in America—as had been suggested by hon. Members in the course of the discussion. Year after year Committees and Commissions were appointed to inquire, and these were very expensive. He did not think it would be found in the end that the establishment of a Fishery Board would be an expensive thing; on the contrary, he believed they would save money by having such a Board, which would be of infinite service in instituting scientific inquiries into the movements, the food, and the spawning of fish and other questions. It was extraordinary the amount which the Americans expended on the promotion of their fisheries. During the last 10 years the United States Government had voted more than 2,000,000 dollars for the purposes of the United States Fishery Commission. He should, therefore, without pledging himself to the details sketched out by the hon. Baronet the Member for East Norfolk (Sir Edward Birkbeck), support the Resolution in its broadest sense—simply that a Fishery Board should be established for England.
  MR. ROUNDsaid, he had no desire to detain the House for any length of time; but, as the Representative of a long line of coast on which there were a large number of people whose interests were at stake in this matter, he desired to support the present Motion. He could corroborote what was said by the hon. Member for Northumberland (Sir Edward Grey) as to the precarious nature of this industry, and the grievances which it suffered in respect of railway rates and depredations by foreign fishermen. They were all glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) in his present place; and they
  894
  trusted he would be able to take a step in the direction proposed. He assured the right hon. Gentleman that there was no body of men more deserving of having their interests safeguarded than the fishermen of this country.
  MR. ROWNTREEsaid, that all men connected with the sea fisheries of England were indebted to the hon. Baronet the Member for East Norfolk (Sir Edward Birkbeck) for the constant interest he had shown in this question. The hon. Baronet had urged that it was time the recommendations of the last Royal Commission should be carried into effect. There was a very strong argument indeed in the Report of that Commission in favour of a step in advance being taken on the part of the House. It was surely not to our credit at all that there was any occasion for the statement in the Report in question. The Commissioners stated that they could not pass from the subject without recording their regret at the absence of all official fishing statistics, with the exception of those relating to the herring fisheries and the ling fisheries in Scotland. The collection of such statistics was recommended by the Royal Commission of 1866, and, again, by the Royal Commission of 1878. Eighteen years had elapsed since the recommendation was made, and we were still absolutely without official statistics by which statements as to the decrease of fishing might be tested. He thought that was the most unfortunate admission, when, as they had been most clearly reminded to-night, the fishing industry round our coast was in a state of most serious depression. No attention whatever was paid until two years ago to the most urgent recommendations of the Royal Commission. Now some improvement had been made, which he, for one, most gladly acknowledged; but if hon. Members would only look into the statistics now presented they would see that England was still at a great disadvantage in this matter as compared even with the fisheries of Ireland or Scotland. Surely, on the very face of things, that ought not to be the case; and if the circumstances were examined, he thought it would be seen that it was a wholly indefensible position, because the fisheries of England were of far greater value than the fisheries either of Ireland or of Scotland. Yet there were Statutory

  895
  Boards, with full powers, both in Ireland and in Scotland; and we were going on with a Department with extremely limited powers—almost without powers at all. What were the actual facts? The value of the sea fish brought into the English ports last year was returned at £3,900,000. The value of the fish brought into the Scotch ports was £1,400,000, and of that brought into the Irish ports only £600,000; and yet the fishermen of England had to go on feeling that the Government were content to allow them to continue in a most inferior position as compared with that of their brethren in Ireland and Scotland, the value of the fish brought into English ports being twice as large as that brought into Scotch and Irish ports combined. The number of men regularly employed in the fisheries of England was 33,400, as against 30,000 in Scotland and 5,000 in Ireland. That, also, made a strong case for the English fishermen being placed on an equal footing with the fishermen of Ireland and Scotland. Then, again, if anyone would look into the matter, he would see that the statistics now supplied of the English fisheries were exceedingly meagre as compared with the Returns of the Scotch Board. He supposed the difficulty was a financial one. He had reason to believe that a far greater number of facts were sent up from our coasts to the Department than the Department published for the knowledge and advantage of the trade of the country; and he thought they might reasonably ask that all the facts that were collected, and could be collected, should be placed in an available form before the country. This question was assuming greater importance year by year. Hon. Members knew perfectly well that the North Sea was now becoming almost like an enclosed cultivated ground, or one ought rather to say an enclosed ruined fishing ground. There was a condition of things there which was wholly unknown a few years ago; and it was necessary, for the very sake of liberty, if he might so say, in the North Sea, that there should be legislation of one kind or another. Just in the same way as bye-laws were necessary when populations increased on land, so, when they had a bit of sea trawled over by thousands of fishing boats, some with steam
  896
  and others with sails, belonging to five or six different nations, it became absolutely needful that legislative enactments should be passed which were totally unnecessary many years ago. He would only urge further that some representative elements should be provided in the Fishery Department of this country. On this point, perhaps, the best argument was to be found in the Report of the Royal Commission. The Commissioners said it was impossible that the power of dealing with trawling within the three-mile limit could be exercised with advantage by any Government Department without special knowledge of fishing questions, and an intimate acquaintance with the various localities was necessary if hardship was not to be inflicted upon certain classes of fishermen. He thought that those who had been brought intimately into association with fishermen would entirely agree that whilst they recognized the courtesy and attention of all the officers of the Board of Trade, with whom they were brought into contact, there was a serious blot in the application of the laws at present, and there was a lack of confidence in the Board, because there was so little touch between the Head of the Department and the fishermen along the coast. The Board of Trade was undoubtedly exceedingly competent to deal with the fishing questions of this country; but everyone knew that the life and habits and thought, and, indeed, the very language, of the fishing population was totally distinct from those of the shipping population. Therefore, the Department might be most admirably adapted for dealing with the great mercantile interests of this country, and yet be altogether unsuitable to deal with the fisheries along our coasts. From what they had already heard from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, he felt great confidence that they would not appeal in vain in this matter. They had received a most courteous response from the right hon. Gentleman, both this year and last, and he (Mr. Rowntree) would only now join in the appeal made, that there should be no more delay in this matter, because he and others who represented fishing constituencies had at present no answer to the men who were appealing to them most earnestly that the recom-

  897
  mendations of the Royal Commission made in their favour should at least receive some attention from the Legislature of this country, and that they should not be left in a position inferior to that of their brethren in Ireland and in Scotland. This was a most urgent question. It was really the denudation of the fish supply along our coasts that we had to face. He could appeal with confidence to the Government, because he felt sure they would receive the most ready assistance of Members of both sides of the House in this matter. If the Government could only see their way to carry out the recommendations of the last Royal Commission, he was persuaded it would be found a most valuable piece of legislation.
  SIR HENRY TYLERsaid, that as representing one of the largest fishing ports in the Kingdom, and as having been for 23 years on the Board of Trade, he desired to say a few words on this question. He rose to support the Motion of his hon. Friend (Sir Edward Birkbeck) because he had no doubt the hon. Baronet was wiser in his generation than he (Sir Henry Tyler) was. It would certainly be an advantage to his constituency that the fishing industry should, so long as the Fishery Department was attached to the Board of Trade, be represented at the Board of Trade by experts. He, however, would propose to go a deal further than his hon. Friend. His experience at the Board of Trade had taught him that the Board of Trade was a valuable Department of the State, and very careful in the performance of all the duties it undertook, but that it was not a Department which was fit for the control of the fishing industry of this Kingdom—an industry so important, so large, and so special. The Board of Trade was excellent in exercising advisory, and some deterrent functions, but it was not a Department well qualified to foster an industry which required to be furnished with information, to be nursed, to be protected, and to be developed; and, therefore, his own view was that it would be far better to set up a general Fishing Board for the United Kingdom. They heard very often of justice to Ireland and justice to Scotland. This was a case of justice to England. England had never been properly considered or officially represented or had
  898
  fair play in respect of fishing. The experiment had recently been made of starting a Department at the Board of Trade, but it had not been successful. Therefore, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would reconsider the whole question in the spirit he had indicated, and would come to the conclusion that so large an industry, which required to be specially fostered, which required special knowledge, and which was different from all other industries, should have a Fishery Board to itself by which its affairs could be properly looked after.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, his hon. Friend had complained that the arrangement or understanding come to when he brought forward his Motion in March, 1886, had not been carried out. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend that a step was taken, but it was only a tentative step. What was the state of things in 1886? The fishing interests were scattered over some six or seven departments. Some were looked after at the Home Office, some at the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, some at the Harbour Department, some at the Admiralty, and some at the Foreign Office. The Government of that day endeavoured to make a department by the creation of a secretary and three Inspectors, and to bring all the interests which were looked after in the several departments he had mentioned under one department. His hon. Friend had appealed to the House to supply themselves with fish, and not to let the foreigner supply it. Whatever might be thought of statistics, he thought they at least proved that the English fisheries were the largest in the world, and that the value of the fish caught within the waters of the United Kingdom was greater than that caught in the waters of any other nation, not excepting America. But there was no commodity more difficult to value than fish. Its value all depended upon when it was valued. Large quantities were wasted, and that, together with the cost of transit, was one of the most important matters in connection with the fish supply. If anything could be done to bring the fishermen into more direct contact with the consumers, it would be an immense gain not only to the fishing industry, but also to the consumers of fish throughout the

  899
  whole Kingdom. He admired the system of the American Government in spending £40,000 annually on their fisheries and in scientific investigations. His hon. Friend (Sir Edward Birkbeck) had started quite a new question by stating that there was a strong feeling springing up for a brand both for herrings and pilchards. He very much doubted whether the fishermen themselves would consider a brand an advantage. He had observed that since the establishment of the Fishery Department in 1886 very excellent statistics had been furnished, and year by year the Department got much better in touch with the fishing industry. There could not be a bettor head of the Department than the present Secretary, Mr. Swanston, who spared himself no pains to keep himself in thorough sympathy with the fishermen, and to see that his Inspectors did the same. The friction which formerly existed between the fishermen and the authorities had vanished entirely. Mistakes had occurred in the past, and he agreed with his hon. Friend (Sir Edward Birkbeck) that if anything more could be done to satisfy the reasonable demands of those engaged in the industry, and to make their wants better known, for them to have better information, or supervision, it ought to be done, sand he believed the Board of Trade would be ready to consider any proposals. The establishment of Local Councils had been suggested. He could remember that on the occasion of a deputation to the Board of Trade in 1886, he recommended the establishment of local associations as the first step towards Local Councils. Local Councils must be elected by the Associated Chambers of Commerce, kept well in touch with the Board of Trade. He could see no reason why chambers of fishing should not do the same thing. While he did not think it was possible to give the Local Councils powers to make bye-laws and enforce rules and regulations—for if they did there would be local conflict and difficulties—yet they might very well send their chairmen to London periodically, and the chairmen could then be brought into direct contact with the Board of Trade Department, and periodically deliberate upon all matters relating to the fishing industry. He suggested that some special arrange-
  900
  ment should be arrived at, whereby all the wants of fishermen might be brought fully before the President of the Board of Trade and the House, through that Minister, who would then be fully in touch with the industry. The Statutory Board which existed in Scotland was a source of constant grumbling amongst Scotch fishermen, because the fishermen were not represented on the Board. If a Board could be composed of the chairmen of the local associations, to meet periodically at the Board of Trade, any such difficulty would be got rid of. There could be no doubt that fishermen had very great grievances, and if this Board was constituted, all questions, including railway rates, could be properly and periodically discussed. He might remark, with reference to the advantages which Continental fishermen had over the English, that when in Italy he had been supplied daily with beautiful fresh turbot at prices cheaper than those of his fishmonger in the West of London, and he had reason to believe that the fish was caught in English waters. He thought that showed the great advantages foreigners had for cheap and quick transit and the superior facilities for the distribution of fish. Fish was an article which greatly varied in value, and it depended a good deal on when you valued it, whether in the morning, afternoon, or night. He had recently received from fish salesmen in Sheffield and other districts of Yorkshire, and from the Midland Counties, sale statistics of fish, showing that, after the cost of carriage and the profits of the middle-man, the fisherman got nothing, or nearly nothing, for his labour. It was very deplorable that the cost of carriage and the middle-man should swallow up all the profits and leave the fisherman almost without remuneration, and it was exceedingly desirable that, if anything could be devised to keep these local councils in complete touch with the Board of Trade, it should be adopted, as it would be a distinct public advantage. He believed that great improvement had taken place during the last few years under the direction of the new department, and he hoped the prospects of the industry would improve still further, and that the present President of the Board of Trade would see his way to accept his suggestion, and bring the Department into direct con-

  901
  tact periodically in the elected representatives of the fishing industry. If the Treasury would be sufficiently liberal to enable the Board of Trade to make such scientific investigations as might be necessary, he believed it would promote the success of the industry.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH)said, that the House was greatly indebted to his bon. Friend for bringing before it a subject relating to one of the most important industries of the Kingdom—a subject in which, for many years past, his hon. Friend had taken an active interest, and which he had practically promoted, representing the fishing industry in that House. Having listened very carefully to the discussion, one result presented itself very clearly to his mind, and that was that, whatever opinion might be formed of the state of affairs two years ago, before the right hon. Gentleman opposite undertook to bring the various Departments connected with the fishing industry under the care of the Board of Trade, there still existed a large amount of dissatisfaction and a desire to strengthen the Fishery Department of the Board of Trade in the manner indicated by his hon. Friend. His hon. Friend divided his Motion into two parts. The first complained of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Mundella), and asserted that the Fishery Department of the Board of Trade, as now constituted, was not in accordance with the scheme by which the control of the fisheries was transferred to the Board of Trade. That was practically an imputation upon the right hon. Gentleman opposite of not having carried out the undertaking he gave to the House when the subject was discussed two years ago. Having consulted the debates which took place on that occasion, and having made himself acquainted with the present constitution of the Fishery Department of the Board Trade, he must say, in justice to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that he thought he had carried out, not only to the letter but in the spirit, every engagement he gave to the House. He found the inland fisheries under the Home Office and the sea fisheries scattered among several Departments of the Board of Trade. He brought them all together by instituting a separate Fishery De-
  902
  partment of the Board of Trade, and putting at the head of it a gentleman of great ability and recognized experience, Mr. G. J. Swanston, to whom a well-deserved tribute has been paid. Then the right hon. Gentleman employed well-qualified persons as Inspectors of both inland and sea fisheries. Following that action of the right hon. Gentleman, there had been, he thought, a distinct improvement, which quite justified him in saying that the Department since that change had been more in touch with the fishing industry than before. The negotiations as to the North Sea Convention and as to the unfortunate differences with the Belgian fishermen and other matters signally showed the good that had been done by centralizing this Department. On behalf of the Department, he was bound to say that, in considering any question that might arise in connection with fishing interests or regulations, or other matters of that kind, the Department invariably communicated with the representatives of the local associations, the smack-owners, the fishermen, or other persons interested in the industry in order to avoid those mistakes which undoubtedly arose in previous years from acting without concert with those having practical knowledge of the subject. He could instance many matters in which this had been done, such as the requirement of arrangements for stanchions and life-lines, regulations for ballast, and other things which none but practical men could understand. As regarded the collection of statistics he thought the improvement that had been made had not been fairly considered; there were no statistics as to sea-fishing at all three years ago, and now they had the Return he held in his hand made every year. He was far from saying that what had been done was sufficient. All he was anxious to establish was that the right hon. Gentleman did carry out the undertaking he gave, and, therefore, was not open to the censure which the first paragraph of the Resolution sought to cast upon him. With respect to the second paragraph of the hon. Baronet's Resolution, it affirmed that—
  "To secure the proper management and development of the Fisheries of England and Wales they should be placed under an authority comprising, in addition to the officials of the Board of Trade, persons with practical knowledge of the Sea and Inland Fisheries,"

  903
  Upon that he might observe that it could be interpreted, and it had been interpreted, in different ways by different Speakers. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) interpreted it as entirely abolishing the connection of fisheries with the Board of Trade and placing them under a Fishery Department, which, as he understood, would be a part of the Agricultural Department.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, that he expressed the opinion that the Fishery Department should be separated from the Board of Trade, but in the meanwhile he supported the proposal of the hon. Baronet.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had been perhaps a little unfair in his references to negotiations with foreign Powers; lately, at least, there had been no complaint to make as to prompt action in such matters; but whatever Department had the control of the fisheries it would be necessary for that department to have recourse to the Foreign Office in all negotiations with foreign Powers. Another interpretation put upon the Resolution by the right hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks) was that an English Fishery Board should be established on the model of the Scotch Fisheries Board, comprising various persons of a quasi- independent character, who should have control of the English fisheries. He must say that that was a pattern he should not like to follow. He did not believe in the utility of such a board, either as a representative or an administrative institution. It would be absolutely impossible that all the various interests, or even a large portion of them which would require representation, could be brought on a paid or even on an unpaid Board. Some would certainly complain, as fishermen in Scotland now complained, that they were not properly or sufficiently represented, and whatever the interests left outside, the claims for admittance could not possibly be conceded. An unpaid Board containing a large number of members would undoubtedly be an administrative failure, and the real administration would go into the hands of the paid members just as it did on certain Boards with which he was well acquainted in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had affirmed
  904
  that Ireland had a fishery board. That was not so. There was a staff of inspectors precisely as in England, but there was not the same description of Board as in Scotland. His hon. Friend himself seemed to interpret the Resolution as being in favour of the institution of Local Councils, which should have certain powers, subject to the Board of Trade, in dealing with fishery matters, and which should send their chairmen or other representatives to consult with the Board of Trade. He fully shared that view, and he believed in the necessity for early legislation in this matter. He quite agreed that the recommendations of the Trawling Commissioners had been too long left unnoticed by the House, and he was now preparing a measure to deal with the matter from the point of view of his hon. Friend, which he hoped shortly to be able to lay before the House. How far it would be possible to give local councils power in such matters it would be difficult to say. He admitted all the difficulties urged by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, for it was obvious that sea fisheries were not of so purely local a nature as affairs which they would allow Local Councils to regulate. Some power such as was possessed by the fishing authorities of Ireland and Scotland for laying down regulations for the protection of the coast fisheries was required for England. In any measure dealing with this subject he would take care to introduce provisions for the utilization of that local practical knowledge to which the hon. Member attached so much importance and which he himself valued as highly as the hon. Member did. He should like to see either the chairmen of the suggested councils or the representatives of the different associations who had taken such an active part in bringing forward proposals for the protection of our fisheries brought periodically into close communication with the Board of Trade and himself, in order that they might give them the assistance of their practical knowledge of the subject. That, however, was a different thing from establishing a statutory Board, and was, to his mind, a much better proposal. There were many other points connected with the Fishery Department which had not been touched upon which he need do no more than mention at the present moment. He did not think that

  905
  the present arrangements for collecting fishery statistics were perfect. The grant was to some extent wasted, owing to the inadequacy of the statistics collected, but with the expenditure of a little more money, which he hoped to obtain, this might be amended. The sum of £5,000, and an annual grant of £500 for five years, had been provided to enable experiments connected with our sea fisheries to be conducted. That was a grant that might be enlarged, it always being kept in mind that those experiments were not mere scientific investigations, but were intended to have a practical effect in increasing the food supply of the country. With regard to the question of police, he thought that the relation between the Admiralty and the Department which was responsible for the control of the fisheries might be somewhat closer than it was at present; but he doubted whether it would be possible to establish a separate fleet for the police service of the fisheries. Indeed, there were practical difficulties in the way of establishing such a fleet that appeared hardly to have been considered by those who had suggested that one or two police vessels should be attached to the Department. He did not mean to imply that the Admiralty were not perfectly ready to meet the requirements of the Department. He hoped the hon. Member would not think it necessary to press his Motion to a Division, inasmuch as the Government could not accept the first part of it on the ground that it contained an implied censure upon the right hon. Gentleman opposite, which was unmerited, and because the second part was so vague and so capable of different interpretations, that if he accepted it, the hon. Member might come down next year and charge him with having failed to perform something which he had never intended to do. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. Member would be contented with the discussion he had raised, the opinions he had elicited from the various hon. Members who had taken part in the debate, and with the statement he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had made on behalf of the Government of his intention to deal with the subject.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, that he had been chairman of a Commission appointed to inquire into our sea coast fisheries, of which the distinguished naturalist, Professor Huxley,
  906
  had been a member, and their object had been to obtain information with reference to the habits and the character of the different fish on our coasts. In the course of their inquiries they ascertained that, although they could depend upon the local fishermen for information as to the mode of capturing fish, those men know nothing of the nature and habits of the fish they caught. To take one instance in illustration of his statement, the Commissioners found that there was a close time, lasting several months, for herrings on the west coast of Scotland, which had been enacted at the instance of the fishermen themselves, but that that close time prevented the fishing for cod and ling, because at that time, when herrings prevailed, they could only be caught by herring bait, and that could not be got on account of the close time. They were great devourers of the herring, and got this advantage of the close time for themselves, which was not intended by the law. We did not know the number of cod or ling in the sea, but we knew how many were salted and dried. Now, giving to these the moderate diet of six herrings daily, they would have destroyed, had they been left in the ocean, more than were caught by all the fishermen of the Kingdom, and 600 added. This view of the case astonished practical fishermen, and close time was abandoned by a repeal of the Act. He wished to draw attention to the fact that in America they had established a Commission for fisheries which had largely contributed to increase the fishing industry of that country. That Commission did not ask the fishermen about the habits and character of the fish, because they knew that it was no use to do so; but they asked Nature. At a cost of some £70,000 per annum, £40,000 of which was contributed by the Federal Government, and £30,000 by the different States, they sent out vessels for the purpose of examining into the habits and the character of the fish. By dint of experiments they found that cod, which was the most important fish on the American coasts, would, like other fish, always return to spawn at the spot where they were hatched, and that by taking spawn from the coasts of Newfoundland, where the cod was accustomed to spawn, and transplanting it to the American coasts, when it was hatched, they educated or naturalized

  907
  the cod into always returning to the American coast to spawn, instead of going off into the cold waters of Newfoundland for that purpose. The cod that so returned to the American coasts to spawn were known as the Commissioners' cod. Let him give one other illustration. The American shad was a fish very much valued, especially by the working classes. This fish would only spawn in waters of a particular temperature, or within a range varying six or seven degrees. If the sea became too hot or too cold, the shad deserted the coast and went out to sea to spawn, and two or three years afterwards a famine of shad results. By watching the temperature of the sea on the coasts, the Commission know what the shad would do, and if they migrated, steamers were sent after them; the shad were caught and stripped of spawn, which was brought back to the coast and hatched. So now there are no more shad famines. Thus the scientific experiments which had been
  conducted by the Commissioners had had the practical result of largely increasing the food supply of the country. He did not think that the small sum given by this country for the purpose of conducting similar experiments here contrasted well with the large sum which the Americans expended in the improvement of their fisheries. The example set by America in this matter had been followed by Germany and France. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would not think that in making the grant of £5,000 and £500 a-year for five years, enough had been done to promote the fishing industry of the United Kingdom.
  MR. AINSLIEsaid, that at the meeting which was held last week in his Division, under the presidency of the noble Lord the Member for West Derbyshire (Lord Edward Cavendish), it was arranged that the local Members representing the fishing constituencies bordering upon Morecambe Bay should bring this question before the House. He thought that every Member who represented a portion of the extensive fishery referred to should, he would not say support the Motion on the Paper, but, at any rate, draw the attention of the House to the position of the fishermen on that part of the coast. In the course of the
  908
  discussion which took place at that meeting, one section of the fishermen complained against another, and they begged that some Local Authority should deal with the various questions arising. He believed that during last year a commission was sent down to the neighbourhood to inquire into the Fishery question; but, although inquiries were instituted, nothing had resulted, and the fishermen complained that although they had given their evidence, no action had been taken upon it. He knew the hopelessness of expecting to pass a Bill to deal with the question, but he was satisfied if it were possible to do so, that the verdict of the House would be in favour of the fishermen, who had a particularly strong case in the eyes of Members representing the part of the country in question.
  MR. T. E. ELLISsaid, he hoped the Session would not be allowed to pass without the right hon. Gentleman making an attempt to bring forward this Bill and pass it into law. Not merely was it necessary for the Board of Trade to secure more scientific information and to publish statistics, but he thought it was important that the scientific information gathered by the Board of Trade should be published in an accessible form. He had noticed that the Report of the Scotch Fishery Department was much fuller, much more interesting, and more valuable than the information published by the Board of Trade. And that difference was still more apparent in regard to the American Fishery Board, who took much more trouble to publish what was necessary and interesting to the fishing trade. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had promised to form Local Councils, and he believed that these would inspire confidence on the part of the fishermen in the Board of Trade, and bring them to know that the information which scientific men could give them was of the most vital importance to their interests. He thought, if the right hon. Gentleman would make these Councils really representative, he would secure for the Department over which he presided the trust of the fishermen in the matter of the regulations and recommendations which they made. The present complaint was that, not merely had ill-regulated trawling ruined and impoverished the inshore fisheries, but that

  909
  the fishermen had to pay for heavy and extortionate licences to the Board of Conservators, on which they had only a sham representation. If the right hon. Gentleman desired to have the Local Councils made of real value, they should be made representative, and then, as he had said, he would have the sympathy of the fishermen, and would be able to make them accept the valuable recommendations of men of Science.
  THE EARL OF CAVANsaid, he thought the fishermen would be very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), but that they would not be thoroughly satisfied until Local Councils had been established throughout the whole of the counties on the coast of England. It would, in his opinion, be impossible to put a great deal of power into the hands of these Councils; but what the feeling of most fishermen was had been stated by his hon. Friend behind him (Sir Edward Grey), who said that the fishermen had a language of their own, ways of their own, and interests of their own, for which they wanted to find expression in that House, and until they had it they would not be contented. What was wanted, he (the Earl of Cavan) thought, was confidence in the minds of the fishermen in the action of the Board of Trade. They wished to see that their views, whatsoever they might be, were adequately represented on the Board of Trade. ["Hear, hear!"] He was glad the right hon. Gentleman assented to that, because he regarded it as evidence that they had to-day made a very great step in advance; and he believed fishermen throughout the country would be exceedingly grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the position he had taken up. Not only with regard to the interest of the fishermen was it desirable that they should be heard, but also, in his opinion, with reference to naval affairs of the country. He thought they might look forward to great assistance being rendered to the country by our fishermen. If they were made to feel that in the event of depression occurring in their trade the Coast Guard or Naval Reserve forces were open to them, he felt that a body of men so intimately connected with the interests of the country, and so thoroughly acquainted with the coasts, would be of great use. He
  910
  trusted that that class might now look forward to the establishment of Councils on which they would be adequately represented.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he hoped that there would be some authority having the power to deal with the fish question as a whole. It would not be placed on a satisfactory basis until they dealt with something nearer home than Nature. He had read the other day a communication by a fish merchant of Montrose, who seemed to have a thorough understanding of the question. That gentleman stated that a cod on the quay in Scotland cost about five-eighths of 1d., when it arrived at Billingsgate, it was a little over 1d.; when it left Billingsgate Market, it cost 7d., and was charged to the consumer at the West End at 10 d. or 1s. a-pound. Therefore, he thought they would not bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion until they dealt with the practice at Billingsgate, as well as other important questions affecting the carriage of fish.
  SIR EDWARD BIRKBECKsaid, he would ask leave to withdraw his Resolution, on the understanding that the President of the Board of Trade would, in the Bill which he proposed to introduce, insert a clause carrying out the proposals as to the Local Councils. He presumed that the chairmen and deputy chairmen of the Local Councils would, whenever they attended in London at the Department, be compensated for their loss of time, and paid their expenses to London and back. He accepted that as an instalment of justice; and he would tell his right hon. Friend frankly that the Board of Trade were on their trial; that the fishermen would keep their weather eye open, as they did at sea; and that if the practical element were not introduced, the matter would be again brought before the House. He did not wish in any way to blame his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Mundella), who, he thought, had done all he could in the three months during which he was at the Office; he simply wished to place it on record that during the two years which had elapsed since 1886, the practical element was not to be found at the Board of Trade. He also wished to confirm what he had said outside the House. He did not wish to say one

  911
  word against Mr. Swanston or the Inspectors; and he felt sure that his right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Honeage) entirely agreed with him. He said that Mr. Swanston had done his best, and that for what he had done the fishermen were thankful. He had been associated with that gentleman on the inquiry into the Belgian outrages, and he asserted that his duties had been carried out in a satisfactory manner.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) having intimated that the proposals for Local Councils would be practically carried out, he believed he would have no reason to complain of the result.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he thought his hon. Friend behind him (Sir Edward Birkbeck) had attached a rather more definite meaning to his words than he had intended them to have. He could not exactly state the precise form of Local Councils which it would be possible for him to propose, but his intention was to include a provision in the Bill for obtaining due representation of local wishes and feelings.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  SUNDAY CLOSING ACTS (IRELAND)— SELECT COMMITTEE.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. P. M'DONALDsaid, he rose to move the Motion standing his name—
    "That the Select Committee on Sunday Closing Acts (Ireland) do consist of Seventeen members, and that Mr. Edward Harrington and Mr. Sexton be added to the Committee,"
    He moved the Resolution, because the Committee as at present constituted was not in the ordinary sense of the word a fair one. To be a fair Committee, there should be at least a corresponding amount of opinion on both sides of the question. Judging by what he had seen, he considered there was a very great preponderance on the one side—in fact, there was twice as much on one side of the present Committee as there was on the other. The two hon. Members he desired to have added to the Committee were such as he was sure there could be no objection taken to.
    912
    The hon. Member for one of the divisions of Kerry, by his close attention to the Business of the House and the great practical ability he brought to bear on all questions, ought to be admirably fitted to take a place on the Committee. With regard to the hon. Member for West Belfast, his capabilities and fitness were so well known that he hoped no hon. Gentleman would stand up in his place and object to that hon. Member being added to the Committee. They had already a precedent for the Motion which he had made. In 1877, on the Motion of the present President of the Board of Trade (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), who was then Chief Secretary for Ireland, a Committee similar to that was appointed; and some days afterwards a further Motion was made, similar to the one he was now making—that the Committee, instead of 15, should consist of 17, and that supplementary Motion was agreed to. He therefore contended he was not making any departure from a principle already established, and he accordingly moved the Motion standing in his name.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Select Committee on Sunday Closing Acts (Ireland) do consist of Seventeen Members."—(Mr. peter M'Donald.)
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he rose to object to the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. P. M'Donald). The hon. Gentleman had made an imputation with regard to the constitution of a Committee which was now in existence, and which had already had two sittings. He (Mr. Biggar) might point out as an evidence that the contrary was the case, that the only divisions which had taken place were in favour of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. It was very well known that the usual mode of selecting a Committee of the kind, and the one which had been followed, was this—each particular Party as represented by its Whip nominated Members of their Party. The Licensed Vintners, through their Secretary, sent shoals of telegrams nominating eight Members whom they wished to have on the Committee. As he (Mr. Biggar) represented the Party led by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) as a Whip, he found out that the number of Members belong-

    913
    ing to that Party who would be allowed on the Committee was four, and the first thing he did was to take the nominations of the paid Secretary of the Licensed Vintners, from which he took two names out of the four, and, of course, in fair play, he nominated two on the other side, whom he thought to be impartial. He thought, in doing so, he was acting in a fair and proper manner, and it was preposterous that such a Motion as this should now be moved by the hon. Gentleman behind him. If they had to squabble over every Committee, as to the opinions the Members held on particular questions, the result would be the whole time of the House would be occupied in discussions as to the selection of Members of Committees. The
    Committee was not moved by himself, but by a Member of the Government. An objection was made at the time the Committee was moved, by one of the hon. Members who now brought forward the Motion; some slight explanation was made, and then the hon. Gentleman did not feel it necessary to divide the House on the question; but they now came, after the Committee had had two sittings, and said they thought it desirable to get on two Gentlemen whose names were supplied by the paid Secretary of the Licensed Vintners. He (Mr. Biggar) had not taken the trouble to ask these two hon. Gentlemen their opinion, but he know their names were supplied by the Secretary of the Vintners' Association. He appealed to the House to support the Committee as at present constituted; for, if the Motion were carried, the practical result would be this—that he would feel called upon to propose two other names to counterbalance the two names which the Licensed Vintners had nominated. The result would be that others would do the same, and they would have a large Committee of 30 Members instead of one of 15. The present Committee had been selected in the customary manner, and, under all the circumstances, he thought the House would unanimously reject the Motion.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR, in supporting the Motion, said he regretted to find that his hon. Friend the Member for West Cavan (Mr. Biggar) considered it to be his duty to support what he (Mr. J. O'Connor) believed to be a cause of injustice. For the first time, the Member for West Cavan had exhibited to the House of Commons
    914
    that spectacle. He denied altogether that there was any intention on the part of himself, or the hon. Member for North Sligo, to squabble over the composition of the Committee. He should be in the recollection of the House when he said that he had, on a former occasion, taken exception to the composition of the Committee which he had stated was, in his opinion, unequally and unfairly constituted. It was because of that, and the belief that the Committee was incapable of arriving at a fair and impartial conclusion, that Notice was there and then given of a Motion for increasing the number of its Members. He would give the reasons why they wished the two hon. Members added to the Committee, which was that they would bring to the consideration of the question an unprejudiced mind. His hon. Friend the Member for West Cavan had stated that there had been already two divisions in the Committee, and that they were in favour of the hon. Member for North Sligo; but what they looked forward to was the Report of the Committee, that by evidence and the elucidation of the truth, to so modify the Report of the majority of that Committee as to strengthen the Report of the minority. There were at present altogether eight Members from Ireland, or about one-half of the whole number, on the Committee; but he maintained that as the question was an Irish one, and ought to be decided from an Irish point of view, there ought to be a majority of Irish Members on the Committee. In what position did the eight Irish Members stand with regard to that view of the question? Six of them were hostile to the interests to be investigated, and two only had any sympathy with them. He denied that that was a fair proportion, and maintained that they were justified in asking that the Committee should be strengthened by the addition of two men who were unconnected with the trade, and who could bring to the consideration of the subject impartial minds. The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) was Lord Mayor of Dublin, and the hon. Member for West Kerry (Mr. Edward Harrington) was a journalist. Their names were selected because they were known to be impartial men. He had said that the Members for Ireland were in the proportion of six to two as regarded opinion on the subject. He, therefore, had no

    915
    objection to some others being put on the Committee. One Member of the Committee had brought in a Bill dealing with a certain section of the liquor traffic. It was quite right that that hon. Gentleman should be on the Committee, because his Bill would be referred to; but he wished to bring before the House another fact in connection with the Committee—that not only were the Members for Ireland unequally divided, but they had been selected from the Liberal Party above the Gangway, and among them were four Gentlemen antagonistic to the interests they had to investigate, and four were advocates of the temperance cause. In the face of these facts, he would ask the House to consider the fact that they were only making a reasonable request in seeking the addition to the Committee which his hon. Friend desired. For these reasons he begged to support the Motion.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he opposed the Motion, and wished to point out that the work which the Committee had to inquire into was the operation of the Sunday Closing Act. The evidence was not matter of opinion; it was mere matter of fact with which the Committee would have to deal. He would like to remind the House with regard to the precedent quoted by the Member for North Sligo, that when the President of the Board of Trade moved the addition of two names to the Committee in 1887, the right hon. Gentleman was careful not to take two men holding the same opinions, but to take one on each side of the question, whereas there was now an attempt to put two hon. Members holding distinctive views on the Committee. He hoped that inasmuch as the selection had been made in the proper manner the Motion would be rejected, that the House would adhere to the present constitution of the Committee, and allow it to proceed with its work.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 9; Noes 173: Majority 164.—(Div. List, No. 63.)

  EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1882 (BELL RESIDUE BEQUEST).

    MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
    MR. CALDWELL, in rising to move—
    916
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to withhold her consent from the scheme for the management of the endowment known as the Bell Residue Fund, now lying upon the Table of the House;"
    said, the Rev. Dr. Bell left a considerable sum of money for the purpose of promoting the educational system of Scotland. The benefits of his system of instruction were not intended to be confined to any particular locality, but were for the people of Scotland; and in the foundation it was stated that the towns to be benefited were Edinburgh, Glasgow, Inverness, Aberdeen, Leith, and St. Andrew's. The trustees founded a Professorship of Education in the University of Edinburgh, with an endowment of £6,000, and they also founded a Chair of Education in the University of St. Andrew's, with an endowment of £4,000. After making these and other provisions under various schemes which have been made up by the Educational Endowments Commissioners, there still remained a considerable sum, which was known as the Bell Residue Fund, and under the scheme now before the House it was proposed to give to the Chair in Edinburgh University a further endowment of £4,500, and to the Chair in St. Andrew's University a further endowment of £3,000. The opposition to this scheme arose on the part of Glasgow and of Glasgow University. They objected to it only in so far as regarded the application of the residue to the Chair in St. Andrew's; they did not object to the scheme in so far as it gave an additional endowment to the Chair of Education in Edinburgh, because they felt that the Chair in Edinburgh was a most useful one, and that it was promoting the benefit of education in Scotland; but it was pointed out that the Chair in St. Andrew's University was practically a Chair without students. St. Andrew's University was in no way suited for the purposes of a Chair of Education in Scotland. There were no Training Colleges in St. Andrew's, and a Departmental Committee of the Scotch Educational Department had reported against the formation of a Training College there, with the Professor of Education at the head of the College, because there were no students who would practically benefit by such a College in such a place. If they further endowed the Chair at St. Andrew's they would be giving simply a

    917
    larger sum to the occupants of that Chair, who was holding a sinecure position. He had no doubt the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald), who was Member for St. Andrew's University, would be able to tell them how many students were attending the Chair, and how many of these were connected with the teaching profession. He maintained that a Chair of Education at the University of Glasgow was of the utmost importance for Scotland. There was no reason why the money should not be allocated to Glasgow University. There was nothing in the nature of the endowment making it locally applicable to St. Andrew's. It was of a wide-spread character, and might be employed in any University for the general benefit of education in Scotland; and he maintained that the money could be more usefully employed by having a Chair of Education at Glasgow. With regard to Glasgow as a field for such a Chair, there were in that city two Training Colleges, which contained a very large number of the students trained in Scotland. In the year 1886 there were no fewer than 94 students attending these Training Colleges who were attending the University of Glasgow as students. In addition to that, during the past few years there had been from 25 to 40 assistant masters of the Glasgow School Board attending the University of Glasgow, and there had been from six to 10 assistant masters of the Govan School Board also attending the Glasgow University, besides assistant masters from Maryhill, Renfrew, and other districts; so that if they had a Chair of Education at Glasgow, they had a large attendance ready to take advantage of it. The Institute of Education in Scotland had reported in favour of the necessity of such a Chair in Edinburgh. The Chair also made provision for the attendance of the mistresses of the schools at the lectures, and there were a large number of these connected with the Glasgow School Board. It was not in the interests of Glasgow University by itself that he made this claim. The Glasgow University Authorities would not reap a penny of advantage from such an endowment, which he advocated solely in the interests of the public, and the whole of the money would go to the occupant of that Chair. Nor would the endowment
    918
    of that Chair be of exclusive benefit to Glasgow or the West of Scotland, because the students who were trained in the Glasgow Training Colleges were trained, not for Glasgow alone, but for the whole length and breadth of Scotland. It was possible to give even more widespread importance to the Chair from the circumstance that the lectures did not necessarily require to be given during the day, but might be given in the evening and on Saturdays. The Edinburgh University Chair of Education had been fully recognized and accepted by the Department in connection with the training of teachers, and it entered as an element into the course for the schoolmaster's diploma instituted by the University, so that the students attending the Training Colleges in Glasgow were placed at a disadvantage as compared with the students attending the Training Colleges at Edinburgh, because they had not the benefit of this class in the University and had not the benefit of obtaining this diploma. It so happened that the number of students attending Glasgow University was very much greater than those who were attending Edinburgh University. No one who looked at the matter from a purely national point of view—from the point of view of what was the best method of disposing of this sum to the greatest possible advantage—could come to any other conclusion than that it would be of far greater importance to give this money for the purpose of founding a Chair in Glasgow University than for the purpose of supplementing a Chair which practically was a nonentity, so far as its usefulness in education was concerned, in St. Andrew's. When the scheme was approved by the Commissioners, the Glasgow University Authorities lodged objections with the Scottish Educational Department, setting forth the views which he had now communicated to the House. The Glasgow University got a note simply acknowledging receipt of their objections; but nothing more had been heard from the Department in reply to these objections until the scheme appeared in the newspapers as having been approved by the Department. He had put a Question to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate yesterday as to whether the scheme had been laid before the Scottish Education Department at a duly

    919
    constituted meeting, and had been duly considered by them along with the objections by the University of Glasgow. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate's answer was that the Department only had before them important matters; but any small matters, such as these schemes, it was not necessary to lay before a meeting of the Department, but they were considered by the Vice President. He would point out to the House that, by the Education Endowments Act, it was laid down that a scheme, after having passed the Commissioners, must be approved of by the Scottish Education Department, which was to hear all parties interested, and that their judgment would practically be a judgment of a Court after having fully considered all the objections that had been stated. In this particular instance he ventured to say not a single member of the Scottish Education Department, barring one at any rate, ever saw the scheme or the objections, or duly considered them. According to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, these schemes were not considered by a meeting of the Scottish Education Department, but were handed over to the Vice President. He (Mr. Caldwell) said that was not in compliance with the spirit of the Act. When a scheme of this importance to the educational interests of Scotland was brought before the Education Department, and when authorities like those of Glasgow University appeared as objectors to the scheme, they were entitled to have their interests heard and determined by the Scotch Education Department, sitting in their judicial capacity and in formal meeting. This was precisely what the people of Scotland complained of—that the matters relating to Scotland were left to be treated alone by a permanent Secretary, and that the interests of Scotland were in no way heard by those who ought to give them the benefit of their due deliberations. When the matter came before the House of Commons, it was almost useless to object, because here, again, the Government had made up their minds that the scheme was to pass, and when they had once approved of it, on however insufficient information, it was defended by the Government in the House, and when the Division Bell was rung the right hon. and learned Lard Advocate had
    920
    the Government Whips at his back, who would bring in hon. Members—who knew nothing of the subject—from the different rooms, who would vote down the Scotch Business, notwithstanding that in many instances there were three-fourths of the people of Scotland on both sides of politics represented. This was why the people of Scotland sympathized so much with the claims of the people of Ireland, because they felt that important matters were often dealt with by one or two officials, and did not get the attention they deserved. He maintained that when they looked to the nature of the endowment, to the fact that it was given by the Rev. Dr. Bell for the purpose of promoting education in Scotland, it was not fulfilling the object of the founder to give the money to St. Andrew's. They did not object to the application of the money so far as Edinburgh University was concerned, but as regarded the balance of the residue, they maintained that to give it to St. Andrew's University was to give it to a purpose that would produce no possible public benefit to the people of Scotland or to education, and that if the money were to be applied for the benefit of a Chair in Glasgow it would be a means of stimulating education in Scotland, and finding a University training to probably the largest number of students that could be brought together in any University. He, therefore, moved that the scheme be not approved of.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to withhold Her consent from the Scheme for the Management of the Endowment known as the Bell Residue Fund, now lying upon the Table of the House."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
    MR. J. A. CAMPBELLsaid, he would leave the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate to deal with the latter part of the hon. Member's speech. He would not enter on the mode of administration of the Scottish Education Department; but in regard to the Motion itself, he was in this delicate position that, having the honour to represent the University of Glasgow, he must on this occasion appear to go against his own constituents. He felt that his hon. Friend opposite had not given quite a full ac-

    921
    count of the circumstances under which the Commissioners, of whom he had the honour to be one, had constructed this scheme. It was not quite a correct statement of the facts to speak of the great bequests of Dr. Bell as not confined to any particular locality, but intended for the use of Scotland as a whole. Dr. Bell left one very large bequest, which he specifically allocated. It was a bequest of £120,000 in Stocks, and it was divided into twelfths. Of these twelfths no fewer than six, or one-half of the whole, he allocated in one way or another to St. Andrew's. One-twelfth each was given to Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Inverness, Leith, and to the Royal Naval School in London. Of the half given to St. Andrew's 5–12ths were given to the Madras College, which he directed his trustees to found, and the remaining twelfth to the Town Council of St. Andrew's, towards the moral and religious improvement of the City, and for useful and permanent works there. It was not correct, therefore, to say that there was no local allocation in the bequest of Dr. Ball. On the contrary, there was a very strong expression of Dr. Bell's particular interest in the City of St. Andrew's. Now, he agreed with all that his hon. Friend had said as to the importance of having a Chair of Education at Glasgow, and as to the great usefulness of such a Chair to the whole of Scotland. But the question was not whether a Chair of Education was to be founded at Glasgow, but whether that Chair was to be founded with Dr. Bell's money. The great bequest of £120,000 was given by Dr. Bell specifically; but the residue of his estate he left his Trustees to deal with, giving them full discretionary powers. When the Educational Endowments Commissioners came to deal with this residue they found that in 1876–12 years ago—Dr. Bell's Trustees had founded two Chairs of Education—one in Edinburgh and the other in St. Andrew's. They found, however, that these Chairs were quite inadequately endowed. Dr. Bell's Trustees had expected that their endowment of the Chairs would have been supplemented by a grant from Her Majesty's Treasury, but in this respect they had been disappointed. The Commissioners further found that the Madras College also was inadequately endowed, and had
    922
    ceased, in great measure, to have the character which Dr. Bell intended it to have—namely, that of a secondary school. They considered, therefore, they were doing the best thing under the circumstances, in the interests of education, and at the same time having regard to the founder's intentions, by giving one-half of the residue, or a little more than half, towards the better endowment of the Madras College, so as to make it really a secondary school, and by giving additional endowments to the two Education Chairs which had been founded by Dr. Bell's Trustees. The selection of Edinburgh and St. Andrew's was not a matter the Commissioners were responsible for. The hon. Member had reflected on the usefulness of the Chair at St. Andrew's. No doubt, St. Andrew's was a small place compared with Edinburgh or Glasgow But it must be remembered that the Chair was very inadequately endowed. What could they expect from a Professorship with only £180 a year of endowment? With a better endowment there was also the prospect of better circumstances for St. Andrew's. There was a connection with Dundee now by the Tay Bridge which did not formerly exist; and if the Universities Bill went forward, and the provisions of that Bill were carried out, there was the prospect of the affiliation of the University College of Dundee with the University of St. Andrew's, so that there would be a much larger constituency to draw upon for a Chair of this kind. The Commissioners dealing with this residue fund did what they considered to be their duty under the circumstances, fulfilling the wishes of the founder in completing what was left incomplete by his Trustees, improving the endowment for the Madras College, and completing the endowment of the two Educational Chairs.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD)said, he thought the hon. Gentleman the Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow (Mr. Caldwell) was somewhat under a mistake in the view he took about the duty of the Education Department to hear all the parties interested. He did not think the Act of Parliament could be interpreted to mean that all the parties who might come forward and make a claim on the funds could be

    923
    held to have an interest. Otherwise, he thought the Scottish Education Department might have a great deal more work to do than was reasonable to expect from them. As regarded the facts of this case, there could be no doubt that his hon. Friend was quite right in saying that it might be a very useful thing for the City of Glasgow to have a Chair of Education; but what astonished one in this case was to find that no step had even been taken on the part of that great and wealthy City to supply that want. The first and only step that had been taken in that direction had been to propose that the old endowed Chair in St. Andrew's should not get its fair share of the residue of the Bell Estate, but that it should be handed over to the Glasgow University, for the purpose of starting them in the enterprize. He could not think that was a reasonable or proper proposition at all on the part of the Glasgow University. His hon. Friend (Mr. J. A. Campbell) said he was in a delicate position in this matter, because he represented Glasgow University. He was afraid that he (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) personally was in a still more delicate position, because he represented the two Universities which got the benefit of this fund for the purposes of the Chair of Education. As regarded Edinburgh, he understood no objection was taken. The object of the hon. Member was to bring to an end the Professorship of Education in St. Andrew's. It was impossible—if the intention of the founder was to be carried out—to set the Professorship at St. Andrew's on a different footing from that of the Chair at Edinburgh.
    MR. CALDWELLsaid, the Chair was only founded in 1876; so that the University would not be in a worse position than it was before then.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, the same remark applied to Edinburgh. He was speaking entirely of the comparison between Edinburgh and St. Andrew's.
    MR. CALDWELLsaid, that his argument was that he did not object to Edinburgh getting the endowment, because that University was doing useful work for Scotland; whereas in the case of St. Andrew's there were practically no students at all.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, it was quite obvious that the more they brought forward the argument that the St. Andrew's Chair had not very many students, the clearer they made it that without a reasonable endowment the Chair could not be carried on. He demurred altogether to the idea that the sole duty of a Professor was to teach a very large number of students. He ventured to think that, upon a very great number of occasions, a Professor's duties were infinitely bettor fulfilled to a small than to a large number of students, and particularly with regard to such a Chair as Education. It was extremely valuable to have a Chair of that nature, not merely for the purpose of developing education in the way of teaching the actual students in the class, but also of developing a system of education by a man devoted to that particular work. They knew perfectly well that the class which Professor Meikeljohn taught in St. Andrew's was far larger than that which many German Professors of as great eminence as any in this country had to teach for far smaller fees. Moreover, the development of St. Andrew's as a University was a thing which they had not only reason to hope for, but to expect within a very short time. That development was likely to be brought about soon through the practical amalgamation with the pushing and vigorous College of Dundee, which was one of the great centres of population, industry, and wealth in Scotland. St. Andrew's was a University for which everyone who was a real Scotsman had a sincere regard, and he was quite sure that if his hon. Friend (Mr. Caldwell) had not had in view the interests of a University nearer home, he would have been the last man to do anything that would cause the slightest injury to St. Andrew's. As regarded Glasgow, he would like to have seen in the case of a vast community, teeming with wealth and abounding with energy, that the citizens themselves had taken some step to equip their University in the first instance before they made a grab at the Bell Fund, which undoubtedly would leave the Chair in St. Andrew's, which had been established for many years, in a state of starvation as regarded endowment. Not only so, but Glasgow would not get

    925
    a sum at all adequate for the establishment of a Chair. Perhaps his hon. Friend would say that they would have a very large class of students, and therefore would not require a very great endowment fund. In that case they would not require an endowment at all.
    MR. CALDWELLsaid, he did not propose to establish any Chair without an endowment, and he was certain the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be the last person to sanction a Chair without a substantial endowment.
    Ma. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, his argument was that there would be no need for an endowment if there were this large class of students paying fees. His hon. Friend knew perfectly well that there were a great number of Chairs in Scotland at the present moment, of which the remuneration obtained by the Professors from fees was so large that they not only did not require an endowment, but unquestionably the Professors drew too large an income from the position they held. If there had been a clamant call in Glasgow for a Chair of Education, and the matter had been pressed forward as it should have been, no one could question that a full endowment would have already been provided for the Chair. He feared it was the fact that they had been rather sluggish in thinking about the establishment of this Chair, and that it was only when they had the prospect of getting something to set it agoing that they found out the great need they had for it. He trusted that in course of time Glasgow would have a Chair of Education; but if a start were to be given he hoped that Aberdeen, with its necessities, would come in for some share of attention. He begged that the House would not yield for one moment to the proposal of Glasgow that it should take away practically from the University of St. Andrew's that which would make it a reasonable and well-endowed Chair, especially in view of the fact that in the immediate future there would be a great development of teaching in connection with the University of St. Andrew's, which would be brought into connection with that great centre of population, Dundee. He must meet the Motion of his hon. Friend with a direct negative.
    MR. C. S. PARKERsaid, he regretted that the discussion should
    926
    have taken place in the presence of so few Scottish Members—probably not more than a dozen. He was afraid that would frequently be the case in appeals against the decision of the Endowment Commissioners on questions in which the general public did not take any great interest. That was the fact, and he was afraid this question would have to be settled by the votes of the English Members, with very small help from the Scottish Members. The scheme they were considering had to do not only with the Chairs of Education, but also with Madras College, St. Andrew's. It ought to be remembered how much the founder of the Bell Fund had at heart the interest of that College, and the scheme of education which he intended to be conducted; and that he intended that institution ought to be not merely of the nature of a primary school, but a higher College. In a letter to a friend, Dr. Bell said he hoped the College would draw families to St. Andrew's for the higher education of their children. If this Resolution were adopted, that portion of the founder's intention would be overthrown, and the money given to the larger City of Glasgow at the expense of the smaller. He regretted that on both sides hard language had been used. The hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow (Mr. Caldwell), who brought forward the Motion spoke too slightingly of St. Andrew's as a place of education. The hon. Member misrepresented the nature of the Report of the Departmental Committee, over which he had the honour to preside. It was true the Committee did not see their way to recommend that the University of St. Andrew's should become a Training College, which was the ambition they had. While the Committee opposed that, they at the same time brought before the Department the fact that in St. Andrew's there was a great deal being done, of course on a somewhat small scale, for education. It was mentioned in the Report that there were as many as 86 graduates belonging to St. Andrew's engaged in the teaching profession. The class for the education of teachers had risen to as large a number as 22, which, compared with some of the German Universities, was a very respectable number to pass through a Professor's hands to become teachers, and was sufficient justification for keeping a Pro-

    927
    fessor of Education. Beyond that, there were hopes of extension through the more direct connection with Dundee by the opening of the Tay Bridge, from which town students were likely to seek their training in St. Andrew's. Besides, the Professor of Education was perfectly willing to make himself useful to the large class of female teachers and students whom they were hoping to actract, especially during the part of the year when the University was closed. He felt bound to bear witness that there was adequate employment there for a Professor of Education. He thought St. Andrew's had a very good claim upon the Fund, both for Madras College and the Chair of Education. The hon. Member said he had no objection to the endowment of the Chair at Edinburgh. It seemed to him they would do a mischievous and injurious thing if they were to throw out the scheme, and reject the judgment of the Endowment Commissioners, merely because Glasgow also stood in need of a Chair of Education. He thought the hon. Member opposite had been too severe on Glasgow claiming a share in this Fund. It seemed to him natural they should do so. He regretted, however, that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate spoke in so severe a tone of the University of Glasgow coming forward to take a share in this Fund. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said Glasgow ought to find the money from their own funds, and when they considered the great wealth of Glasgow there was much to be said for that; but it should be remembered that Glasgow had shown no slowness to come forward in that way. He was bound to say they had set an example to all Scotland by the liberal spirit in which Glasgow School Board had been conducted. Their High School was a model of what could be done by a School Board in connection with higher education. Their ordinary schools were rising very much in education, and the whole administration in Glasgow was admirable. Whether the Glasgow School Board had a strong conviction on the subject of adding to the Training Colleges and the University teaching, he was not informed on the point, but no doubt they were supporting the University in this matter. He was willing to admit for argument to-night that a Professor of Education would have a larger field at Glasgow, and would
    928
    render more service than it was possible for such a Professor to render at St. Andrew's; but he did not think on that account they ought to reject the decision of the Endowment Commissioners and the Education Department to follow the load given by Dr. Bell's own Trustees, and to apply this small portion of the money to the Chair of Education in St. Andrew's. It was therefore his intention to support the Commissioners, and to vote against the Motion.
    Mr. MUNDELLA,said, that this was purely a Scotch quarrel, but knowing something of the case he had some justification for taking part in the debate. He was very reluctant to interfere in what was entirely a Scotch question, but he would plead as an excuse the fact that he had been a Member of a former Council of Education for Scotland. No Royal Commission had done more good work than the Scotch Education Commission, and it seemed ungracious to criticize anything that had been done by them; but he confessed that in this case they had made a mistake. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had spoken of rich and wealthy Glasgow wanting to despoil the little City of St Andrew's. As a matter of fact, an additional £8,000 was going to the Madras College in St. Andrew's, which would make something like £70,000 which would go to St. Andrew's. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the niggardliness of Glasgow he would remind him that the University of Edinburgh had done nothing for the Chair of Education. It had never spent a penny upon it. He agreed that St Andrew's had a prior claim, and the Commissioners had now granted an increased sum to St Andrew's, so that the interests of St Andrew's were not being neglected by the Commissioners. Dr. Bell's legacy was for a wide purpose, for the benefit of education in Scotland. What, then, could have been more serviceable to Dr. Bell's countrymen than to put a Chair of Education where it could be availed of by the largest number of those who were to be engaged in teaching. He could not speak too highly of Professor Moiklejohn's attainments, but what he objected to in this scheme was that they kept his light under a bushel at St Andrew's, where he would have comparatively nothing to do, instead of

    929
    having him in a more richly endowed Chair in Glasgow.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Commissioners had no power to remove that Chair to Glasgow. It was an endowed Chair in the University of St Andrew's.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, they could have endowed a Chair in Glasgow with this fund, and although it would have been poorly endowed the Chair would have received considerable fees from the students attending the University. It was not to Glasgow that the money would have gone, but to the benefit of teachers all over Scotland. He did not know any City in the United Kingdom where there was so much educational life as there was in Glasgow. Nowhere would such a Chair have been so well placed as in Glasgow, and hardly anywhere could it have been placed to so little advantage as in St Andrew's. If the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow (Mr. Caldwell) should go to a Division, he should—reluctant as he was to vote against any proposal by the Scotch Commissioners—vote with him, although he was afraid they would have little chance of doing more than making a protest.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, it was a most refreshing sight to find the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) opposing the scheme, as it was usual for officials, present or former, of the Education Department to be found on the other side. He (Dr. Cameron) had no hankering after Chairs of Education, because he believed the work of training teachers could be better done in the Normal Schools, where they got both instruction and practice. There was one practical point connected with the subject before the House. The Lord Advocate had a University Bill for them, which, of course, with the new Rules he was certain to carry; and that Bill would appoint a Commission to deal with University matters. Now, this Resolution would upset that scheme, for it would give the Educational Endowments Commissioners power in money matters connected with the Universities which would be better entrusted to the University Commissioners. The matter might, therefore, be fairly settled by
    930
    allowing the Education Commissioners to say that a certain amount of the Bell residue should be devoted to the purposes of subsidising Chairs of Education in the Universities, and then that the allocation of the money among the Universities should be left to the Commission which the Lord Advocate was about to institute. If his Colleague would accept that suggestion, he would support the Motion; but otherwise he must decline to do so.
    MR. WALLACEsaid, the hon. Member was slightly anticipating when he assumed the existence of the new University Commission. For his part, he (Mr. Wallace) looked forward to that Commission with a certain amount of suspicion. But with regard to this Motion, he thought it was clear that if the people of Glasgow came to see the necessity of having a Chair of Education in Glasgow, they would, with their usual liberality, equip one for themselves; and, therefore, by refusing to give this assistance to St. Andrew's, a double mischief would be perpetrated, because they would omit an opportunity of strengthening the University of St. Andrew's, which had no wealthy friends in its midst; and they would take away the stimulus from Glasgow to equip a Chair for herself if they gave her this endowment. Moreover, from the close local connection of Dr. Bell with St. Andrew's, that place was the natural destination of the Bell Residue Fund; and they who desired, as he did, to keep endowments intended for the poor to the poor, and not give them to the comparatively rich, had that consideration on their side in supporting St. Andrew's in this matter. As to what had been said of the larger field for educational usefulness presented by Glasgow, there was no doubt some force in that; but he thought there was a great deal of truth in the contention of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate that, to some extent, the very smallness of a University was a strength to it, for this reason, that the Professors were more in the position of private tutors to their students than in the large Universities, where the classes were often utterly unwieldy. From his own knowledge of men who had passed through the Universities, he had no hesitation in saying that, compared with the numbers, the University of St. Andrew's and its teach-

    931
    ing would bear a favourable comparison in respect to the position its students had occupied in the public life of Scotland with any of the other three Universities. He did not stand up for respecting the wishes of the pious founder absolutely and always; but he thought a certain reasonable latitude of time should be allowed before interfering with them, otherwise the benevolent intentions of such persons would be checked, and the public would be the losers. If ever the wishes of the pious founder should be respected, it was in the case of bequests loft for the benefit of the poor. St. Andrew's was a poor University among the Universities of Scotland, and he had no doubt, if Dr. Bell were capable of expressing a desire, he would wish that St. Andrew's should obtain any assistance it could from the moneys left in his name. Altogether, it seemed to him that the Commissioners in this matter had done a wise thing. He felt perfectly confident that great good would be done to the University of St. Andrew's and to the cause of education throughout Scotland as represented in that University, and that no harm would be done in the meantime to the University of Glasgow.
    MR. S. WILLIAMSONsaid, he hoped the House would reject the Motion. If he had any objection to the scheme, it was that enough had not been given to St. Andrew's. If the whole of the money had been given, that would have been carrying out the founder's bequest; and he was perfectly ashamed of the hon. Member representing the rich commercial city of Glasgow for his monstrous proposal to divide £7,090 between Edinburgh, Glasgow, and St. Andrew's Universities. Why had they not included Aberdeen? It was a pure piece of covetousness, and he did not believe the bloated merchant aristocrats of Glasgow would support his hon. Friend in this proposal.
    Question put, and negatived.

  VAGRANT ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  (Mr. Charles Acland, Sir Robert Fowler, Sir John Kennaway, Mr. Harry Davenport, Mr. Caine.)
  VAGRANT ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

    [BILL 125.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. C. T. DYKE ACLANDsaid, that in moving that the Bill be now read a second time,
    932
    he did not wish to detain the House more than a few moments; but it was a subject he had long had on the Notice Paper, and he was, therefore, anxious now that an opportunity had arisen, to bring it before the House. It would be remembered by many hon. Members now in the House, that in the year 1883, on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), certain Acts which dealt specially with certain diseases and certain places, were repealed. The Government of the day contemplated some further action, he believed, to remove whatever evil might have been the result of the repeal of those Acts; but subsequently the Government thought it right to abstain from taking action, and nothing whatever had been done from that day to this. He (Mr. Acland) had spoken in the debate which occurred upon the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax, and protested strongly against the proposal of that right hon. Gentleman. He had been anxious that the good which was indirectly done by the Acts to which he referred, should not cease, and he had been moved to speak by the pressure of other persons and the interest he felt in the ports of Plymouth, Portsmouth, and elsewhere, representations having been made to him by clergymen, magistrates, and others who were anxious for the preservation of morality in these towns to the effect that the Contagious Diseases Acts were necessary from that point of view. He believed these persons were right in thinking that good was done indirectly by the Acts; but, on the other hand, he appreciated the strong agitation, he might say the invincible agitation, which had not yet ceased, and which at that time had sprung up against these Acts wherever they were in force. He agreed that they were a blot upon the Statute Book, standing as they did. The Bill of which he new moved the second reading was an attempt to minimize the evil effect which had been produced by simply repealing the Acts and leaving matters in that state that the result in our garrison and seaport towns had been a vast increase of immorality. In many places, especially in these garrison and seaport towns, it was perfectly impossible for young soldiers and sailors to go from their quarters to respectable recreation

    933
    rooms, without being accosted and beset with temptations most difficult for them at their time of life, and with their immature judgments, to resist, and that upon every side. He believed that many young soldiers and sailors would get through their career without yielding to those temptations, were it not for the manner in which the temptations were brought in their way. He had given some attention to the manner in which measures had been taken to deal with this evil in other places. At one time, he had thought that the provisions of the Glasgow Act might be applied to other portions of the Kingdom; but, on looking into the details of that Act, he had found difficulties connected with the maintenance of houses of refuge and other matters which would render that particular measure impossible of general application. He had not attempted that, therefore; but the proposal in the Bill was that, where habitually and constantly a large number of people congregated for immoral purposes, and were known to congregate in certain places for those purposes, and to practice their trade to the annoyance and injury of persons living in those places, it should be possible for the inhabitants to complain of the annoyance to the police authorities, and that then the police authorities should be bound to take measures to mitigate the nuisance. Now, he knew there were many who thought themselves justified in believing that the police were not fit to be entrusted with this duty; but there was no other body that he knew of which could be trusted with it, and he could not believe that it was necessary in this country to leave unrestricted the constant daily and open exercise of a pernicious trade to the injury and annoyance of the people in whose neighbourhood it was carried on. It would be observed that in the clauses of the Bill the phrase "concourse and resort of numerous persons" was used. It might be said that "concourse" or "resort" were difficult to define, and that "numerous persons" was a vague phrase; but it was not necessary to use more definite phrases than either of these for the purpose of complaint. If a complaint could be sustained, it was simply necessary for the ratepayers to say that there was a concourse of persons to their annoyance. They had to
    934
    prove this annoyance, and that, he thought, was a thing which could be easily proved, and he certainly thought, that if there were an annoyance, they had a claim to have it mitigated. Then, again, he had made it a point in the Bill to deal with both sexes alike. He believed one of the great defects of our law up to the present time had been that the main operation of the law had been directed against one sex alone. That was a great evil, and even if the Bill were reduced to this one clause, he should be glad that it should be passed; but he certainly did wish this to be borne in mind, that though it might be said that practically, in dealing with these matters, the police mostly went against one sex and not against the other, this was at least true, that the sex against which they proceeded were really plying a trade for their living, which was not to be said of the other sex. That, in his mind, made a very considerable difference between the sexes in this matter. He need hardly say more on this occasion. He thought he had explained sufficiently the intention of the Bill, and he only wished further to add this, that owing to the necessities of our trade and commerce and our military and naval defences, we were bound to have large aggregations of men in certain garrison towns and seaports at a time of life when the passions of the men were strongest and their judgments and experience were weakest. He should be glad if, by so doing he would be more likely to carry the Bill, to eliminate the Metropolis altogether from its provisions; for he admitted that London was a special case, and was too large for a private Member to deal with; but our garrison towns, he thought, in some way or other, might be allowed to be touched. He considered that the community had a claim upon the Government so far as those towns were concerned. The Government, for the purposes of the Army and Navy, brought heaps, he might say thousands, of young men into particular places under the circumstances he had just explained. These young men afforded a specially favourable field for the plying of that horrible trade to which he had adverted, and the result was that in our garrison towns were congregated nearly all the poor wretched girls who were ruined in other parts of the country. Having no

    935
    chance of obtaining an honest livelihood in their own neighbourhood, they took to these places in the hope that they might be enabled somehow or other to survive. He hoped the Government, if they could not accept this Bill as it stood, would at least not allow the subject to escape their attention, considering that the position in which the questions had been left by the repeal of the Acts in 1883 was not a credit, but, on the contrary, a distinct evil to the nation, both morally and physically. He bogged to move the second reading of the Bill.
    MR. S. SMITHsaid, he rose to second the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Acland). The Bill which the hon. Member had just proposed should be read a second time, dealt with a gigantic social evil in this country. The state of our large cities was disgraceful, and no such sights could be witnessed anywhere in Europe as were to be seen in the streets of London and of all the large cities of this country at night. He did not agree with his hon. Friend that London ought to be exempted from the operation of the measure, because he considered that the state of certain streets of the Metropolis at night was simply a disgrace to civilization. It was perfectly well known to those who had had to look into the social state of the Metropolis, that large sections of the city in the neighbourhood of Regent Street and Piccadilly after 12 o'clock at night became a perfect Alsatia. The streets swarmed with the vicious of both sexes, and it was almost impossible for respectable people to pass along without being insulted. He would just relate what had been told to him by an eminent clergyman of this town a little time ago. This gentleman, who had held a religious Watch Night Service at St. James's Hall, stated that as his congregation passed into the street on leaving, the women were insulted so outrageously that it was scarcely possible to protect thorn safely to their homes. Numbers of young men, respectably dressed ruffians, coming out of music halls and theatres, offered them gross insults. When the police were applied to for protection, they declared that they were powerless to interfere with the existing state of things, and this clergyman stated that undoubtedly the police either wanted the power or the will to take action, and he proposed that there should be a band of
    936
    special constables formed for the purpose of grappling with this evil. He (Mr. S. Smith) was glad that the Bill of his hon. Friend dealt with both men and women, for the conduct of the male sex was often worse than that of the other. Those who had followed the evidence given before the Lords' Committee a few years ago were aware that Lord Shaftesbury and many others testified that it was a habitual practice of a number of young miscreants to wait at shop doors at night when shops were being shut, and follow the women who had come out to their homes, persecuting and molesting thorn wherever they went. So far as he knew, nothing had been done to abate this annoyance. Our young women had no protection against miscreants of this class, but this Bill proposed to deal with the matter. It might not do so in the most perfect way, but if anyone could propose a better, those who promoted the Bill would be exceedingly glad to hear of it. Many people took great objection to increasing the powers of the police. Well, he was quite aware that there were black sheep amongst the police, and he did not for a moment defend many things which had been done by them, and he thought there was grave reason indeed to inquire into the management of the force, but they required some machinery to put the law into motion, and he did not know if any better machinery than that proposed in the Bill existed. If anyone could invent a better, let them do so, but one thing was certain, they were bound to put down this intolerable evil. The fact was that there was a large part of this city in which young persons were subjected to such temptation that, unless something of the kind proposed in the Bill was done, it would become a second Sodom. Parts of London were a disgrace to civilization, and he did not think that anything worse existed in any part of the world. He begged to second the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. C. T. Dyke Acland.)
    MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he rose to move that this Bill be read a second time that day six months. He respected fully the philanthropy of the hon. Gentleman who had just supported the Bill (Mr. S. Smith),

    937
    but he had spoken as if the Bill were one for providing some means of punishing those young men who insulted and importuned young women. So far as the 2nd clause of the Bill was concerned, and so far as it would provide a means of punishing the men to whom the hon. Member referred, he (Mr. James Stuart) was sure the Bill would receive the support of all for whom he was entitled in any way to speak on this matter, although he could not see why the proposers of the Bill were not content with the enforcement of the existing penalties, but transferred the matter to the Vagrant Acts, unless their desire was to obtain a severer punishment. He should like the House to observe that, whereas under the existing Acts quoted in the Memorandum to the Bill, a 40 s. fine or 14 days' imprisonment was capable of being inflicted, should this Bill become law the punishment would be raised to a month's imprisonment with hard labour. But the point on which he wished most distinctly to move the rejection of the Bill was not the equalization of the law as between men and women, of which he fully approved, for there were due safeguards which seemed to him to be fairly introduced in Clause 2 of the Bill, but because of Clauses 3 and 4. Now, there was a specious appearance about these Clauses 3 and 4, and as if they were in some way or other safeguarded. The House would observe that it was stated in the memorandum at the beginning of the Bill that the Bill proposed to deal with the matter by requiring annoyance to be proved in ordinary cases, and so on. Now there was an appearance there as if it would only be in extraordinary cases that Clause 4 would come into operation. Twelve ratepayers were indicated there as the persons who might put the clauses into operation, and when it was remembered that these ratepayers might reside anywhere within a mile's radius of the place they might refer to in their complaint, and when it was remembered that there were 250,000 residents within a mile's radius of a given point, it would be seen that the whole Metropolis could be brought under Clauses 3 and 4—and there could be no doubt, from the arguments of the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Bill, that steps would be immediately taken for placing certain districts to which he referred, under cir-
    938
    cumstances which it was quite unnecessary for him (Mr. James Stuart) to trouble the House with, under the operation of Clauses 3 and 4. Therefore they had to look upon it in this light—what was the meaning and what would be the operation of Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill? Clauses 3 and 4 were simply to take away from the police in prosecuting any man or woman under this Act the necessity of bringing forward witnesses as to annoyance, because it would be observed that in the Memorandum it was stated that practically there was great difficulty in proving annoyance even in cases of obvious public nuisance, and the Bill was to remove by means of those clauses the necessity of proving that annoyance. Now, in the few remarks which had been made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith), who had supported the Bill, the hon. Member had declared it to be almost impossible for persons to pass by in the streets in certain parts of London without being insulted. Well, surely if that were the case, it was possible to prove the annoyance or the insult from which those persons had suffered, and so far as the hon. Member's argument went, it was only an argument for the establishment or the adoption of the 2nd clause of the Bill, and in no sense whatever an argument for the adoption of the 4th clause. They were by the 4th clause of the Bill to put the crowded districts of the big towns of the country or of the Metropolis—and the hon. Member who had moved the Bill said he should be prepared to eliminate the Metropolis, though why he did so he (Mr. James Stuart) was at a loss to imagine, particularly, as from the observations of the hon. Member for Flintshire, it would appear most essential to deal with the condition of London—immediately under the control of the police. The 4th clause would give the police a freer hand in dealing with this question than they had before. There would, in fact, be no necessity resting upon them to prove annoyance. The hon. Member had spoken as if no way, no Act or law, existed in regard to this matter at the present time. It was said—"Could there be nothing done in London and nothing done in other large towns for removing the annoyance of solicitation?" But did hon. Members know what the law was in this matter?

    939
    The law was that a person should be liable to a fine of not more than 40 s. or 14 days' imprisonment; and then a list of offences were given—he was speaking of the 2 & 3 Vict. c. 47—and amongst these offences was to be reckoned—
    "Every common prostitute or night-walker loitering or being in any public place for purposes of prostitution or soliciting to the annoyance of any person or persons."
    If the police liked to enforce that law they had ample power to deal with the existing evil. When they saw the amount of blackmailing which the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Caine), whose name was on the back of this Bill, had attempted to prove—although he had not succeeded in his attempt—as against the police under the existing law, which he (Mr. James Stuart) had just read—if the hon. Member for Barrow was in his place, he would ask him whether he could imagine for a moment, whatever amount of blackmailing may exist now, it would not be enormously increased when there was less necessity for the police to bring proof of any accusations they might make? It was a well-known thing that a great deal of blackmailing did go on in this matter, although the hon. Gentleman the Member for Barrow-in-Furness had not succeeded in proving it; and there was no doubt that that would be increased wherever the police were released from the obligation of offering proof. And that held good not only in this country, but in all other countries whore the system of police interference existed. The House was asked to endeavour to moralize a people by means of the police. [Mr. C. T. DYKE ACLAND dissented.] The hon. Member who had moved the second reading shook his head; but what was he going to do? He was going to give the police greater power of action in the endeavour to put a stop to immorality, because he was not going to call on individuals who were annoyed in the streets to come forward with their complaints, but intended to allow the police to proceed upon their own motion. That was certainly an endeavour, so far, to moralize society by moans of the police.
    MR. C. T. DYKE ACLAND: The police are only to take action on the complaint of certain ratepayers.
    MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he thought he had pointed out how the safeguards against misuse of the powers contained in the Bill—the complaint of 12 ratepayers out of 250,000 within a circle of a mile—were wholly illusory. A dozen people out of such a number could at any time be got to make such complaint as was necessary under the Bill. They might let the police loose on the streets, and might make some sort of effort to deal with the scandal existing in some quarters of our large cities; but he asked the House to consider whether the causes of the evil they wished to eradicate, both amongst men and women, did not lie too deep to be removed by the action of the police, and whether solicitation would not elude the grasp of the police, however much they might leave that grasp unsafeguarded? However, he would content himself, without going further into the arguments, by saying that they had lately seen sufficient of the action of the police with respect to women to make them shrink entirely from giving them greater powers. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
    Amendment moved, to leave out the word "now." in order to insert the words "this day six months."—(Mr. James Stuart.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. H. T. DAVENPORTsaid, he rose to support the Motion for the second reading; and he would not say more than a few words, for the reason that the subject was one with which the House, unfortunately, was too familiar. They were, all of them, more or less acquainted with the arguments both for and against the Bill, which made it unnecessary to dwell on the subject at any length. The hon. Gentleman who had moved the rejection of the Bill had done so principally on the ground that the 3rd and 4th clauses, which were, of course, novel but important clauses, did not sufficiently raise a case for extraordinary action on the part of the law, and did not sufficiently guard the public against the action of the police. These clauses were intended especially to enable the police to act upon an extraordinary and exceptional state of feeling as to the condition of

    941
    any streets and places of public resort, which were frequented by large numbers of men and women for the purpose already described, and they were proposed for the purpose of doing away with the difficulty of abating this nuisance. That the nuisance was a great one, everyone who passed through our streets and thoroughfares at night know; but at present the police could not grapple with it, as they were unable to interfere without an act of solicitation having taken place, and the person who had been solicited being willing to undergo all the annoyance of appearing as a prosecutor. It was because of that difficulty that our law was powerless to deal with this public scandal. Under the Bill, in a case where a thoroughfare was habitually resorted to by numbers of persons for purposes of immorality, a certain number of the inhabitants of the neighbourhood would be able to go to the police and say—"The state of such and such a street or such and such a neighbourhood is a nuisance, and we call on you, in the cause of decency, to prevent the nuisance." In this way the condition of the street or neighbourhood in question would be brought more directly under the supervision of the police, and if they found men and women loitering about there apparently for immoral purposes, they would have authority to apprehend them, and to initiate an inquiry into their conduct. Of course, it would be necessary for evidence to be given of the act of loitering or immorality. He could not see why, that being the case, it should be more difficult to prove a case of immorality or loitering under these two clauses, than it was in ordinary cases of vagrancy to prove loitering for unlawful purposes. The only extraordinary part of the provisions of the Bill were those which gave the same powers to the police to act, when requested by residents in the neighbourhood affected, for the abatement of this nuisance that they now had under the Vagrant Acts for the prevention of vagrancy. Though they were all more or less alive, of course, to the dangers of the system known as blackmailing, still he thought that the Bill was one of great value, and that it was worth while risking something to gain much.
    MR. W. H. JAMESsaid, he did not wish to detain the House; but he desired to say that it
    942
    appeared to him that this was a measure introduced, into the House purely on the assumption that they could make people moral by Act of Parliament. He must say he greatly regretted seeing a measure of this kind introduced from that (the Opposition) side of the House, where one would expect to find protection for what was known as liberty of the subject. There were several important clauses of the Bill which provided against what was termed resorting in a public street or thoroughfare for immoral purposes. Well, was it possible to define in any Act of Parliament the words "immoral purposes?" He would not yield to anyone in deploring the shameful state of things which was to be witnessed in the streets of our Metropolis and large cities; but he contended that there was no more mischievous assumption than to suppose that they could make people better or protect them from inherent evils by the action of the police. What might be perfectly harmless to some, in others would lead to immorality. Hon. Gentlemen could scarcely be aware of the thousands and tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of persons who went out on Sundays and other occasions, sometimes for walks in the public parks and other places of resort which were to be found in all large cities. Many of these people might pass down the thoroughfares of which complaint was made to the police, merely for the sake of taking a harmless walk, and yet their conduct might give offence to some people. It was conceivable that a dozen ratepayers might have some spite or personal feeling against some particular individual and might set the police against them, and the provisions of the Bill might in many ways lead to the establishment of systems of espionage and blackmailing, the extent of the evil of which it would be impossible to conceive as affecting our social system. He believed with the hon. Member for the Hoxton Division of Shoreditch (Mr. Stuart) that the real remedy for the evil lay deeper than such legislation as this. It was, no doubt, a great misfortune that this evil should exist; but it was quite impossible, and an entirely wrong assumption which no reasonable person would venture to make, to suppose that they could by Act of Parliament put a stop to the evil practice against which this Bill was directed.
    DR. FARQUHARSONsaid, that the phrase they had just heard—that was to say, that they could not make people moral by Act of Parliament, was not warranted—he did not think it would bear examination—in connection with this Bill. They could undoubtedly make people more moral by removing temptation from the paths of the young and inexperienced. Under the existing law, annoyance in the streets might be proved individually; but look at the inconvenience and worry and expense, and perhaps even loss of character, which might be involved in the attempt to prove such annoyance. Difficulties beset the path of everyone who attempted to prove an individual grievance of that kind. But under this Bill, if it were passed, the police, set in motion by the ratepayers, would have power to disperse the crowds who constituted the evil, and in that way remove temptation—and very great temptation—from the path of the young. The Bill recognized the principle that a concourse of persons for an immoral purpose was a nuisance. He wished to say one word about the police. He knew it had become rather the fashion for certain Members in the House to abuse the police; but, for his own part, he did not think that the charge brought against their action in reference to this particular class of offence by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Barrow (Mr. Caine) was proved at all. He thought the hon. Member had founded his case upon very weak evidence indeed; and he believed that the investigation which had taken place had exonerated the police from all suspicion. The police might be fairly trusted to carry out the provisions of a Bill of this kind; because, after all, all that was to be done was to bring evidence before the tribunals of the country, which would try persons charged with offences under the Bill by the ordinary processes of law.
    MR. T. FRYsaid, he thought the suggestion made by the hon. Member who moved the second reading of the Bill, that he was willing to eliminate the Metropolis from the measure, showed the object he had in view. It was really to protect the health of our soldiers and sailors. He (Mr. T. Fry) hoped the House would pause before it consented to read the
    944
    Bill a second time, for it was nothing but an attempt to re-introduce, by the thin end of the wedge, the repealed Contagious Diseases Acts for the protection of the health of our soldiers and sailors. They all deplored, as much as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) the condition of the streets of the Metropolis; and if a Bill of this kind was likely to be of any use at all anywhere, it would be in the Metropolis, which, however, the Mover said he was ready to eliminate, if necessary. If the police exercised the powers they at present possessed, they would be able to do all that was requisite to clear the streets.
    MR. PICKERSGILLsaid, the Bill seemed to be the outcome of a delusion which appeared to exist in some minds. It was an attempt to combine two impossible conditions. It was an attempt to combine the outward decency of the streets of Paris with the absence of State-regulated vice which existed in that City. To do that was impossible. If they had a State-regulated system of vice, they would have decent streets, as in Paris; but if they had no State-regulated system of vice, they would see the condition of things which was now to be observed in the streets of London, and which every right-thinking man must desire to see abolished. What was the essence of this Bill? Why, to dispense with the necessity of proving annoyance—a thing which an hon. Member near him (Dr. Farquharson) regarded as its great merit. That hon. Member said, look at the worry, the expense, and possible loss of character which were involved in proving annoyance. Well, he (Mr. Pickersgill) was sorry to see his hon. Friend take up that position. He had thought—if he might be allowed to put it so—that his hon. Friend was a more strongly vertebrated animal than the position he had taken up seemed to show him to be; because the Bill was an indication of a tendency which, he was afraid, was rapidly growing amongst them—a tendency to get the police to do everything for them, instead of leaving the citizens to do something for themselves. It was because he saw in the Bill the mark of that tendency that he, for his part, was strongly opposed to it, and hoped the House would reject it.
    SIR GEORGE TREVELYANsaid, he must say that this was one of those occasions on which the House was entitled to look for guidance from the Government Bench. It seemed to him quite impossible that anyone could, with a clear opinion, or even a clear conscience, vote for an extension of the powers of the police, unless the Minister who was responsible for law and order in this country stated that the present powers were insufficient to keep up a certain average and reasonable propriety in our streets. He (Sir George Trevelyan) was certainly very much struck by the arguments which had been put forward as a reason for hesitating to agree to the Bill; and he should imagine that it would be almost impossible for the great bulk of Members of the House to acquiesce in a Bill giving such serious powers of interference with private action, unless the Minister who knew most about the state of our streets and the powers that already existed for keeping order, stated that the powers already possessed by the police were wholly inadequate. He (Sir George Trevelyan) rose, not as a Member of the House who had any special knowledge—he might even say any special opinion—on the subject of the Bill; he rose as a Member of the House who wished to be informed; and he asked the Government, and especially the Home Secretary, to say whether he thought that this Bill for extending the powers of the police was necessary?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS)said, that but for the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, he should not have taken part in this debate. No man, he supposed, could live in one of our large towns without feeling ashamed of the condition of the streets at night. This country was the most moral country in Europe, though the, streets of our towns presented an unfavourable contrast to those of Continental cities. One cause of this was undoubtedly the spirit of liberty which would not tolerate the police interference, which preserved in Paris an outward decorum by no means answering to the real state of morals. He did not think the law as it stood was insufficient. The two Acts of Parliament
    946
    —the Metropolitan Police Act and the Towns Police Clauses Act—gave ample powers for dealing with the difficulty, and it was by no means necessary in order that the law should be enforced, that application should be made by a person actually solicited. A tradesman who was habitually annoyed by a prostitute haunting his premises or frequenting, for the purposes of her trade, the pavement in front of his premises, could put the law in motion. The hon. Gentlemen the Mover and Seconder of the Bill had taken different lines, as the Mover disclaimed any desire to deal with London, and the Seconder referred to nothing but London.
    MR. C. T. DYKE ACLANDsaid, that he expressed no unwillingness to extend the Bill to London, but stated that London was too large a subject to be dealt with by a private Member. His main object was the garrison towns.
    MR. MATTHEWSsaid, there was no reason to believe that the existing law was not sufficient for the garrison towns. No doubt the police would have to take action under the existing law, and there could be no doubt that seine Members of the House were answerable for attempts to discourage the police from taking measures. Under the Metropolitan Act he was fortified in his view by the almost unanimous opinion of the police magistrates—persons resident at Highgate, for example, might compel a prosecution of persons guilty of an offence under the present law committed in Regent Street or anywhere in the Metropolitan Police District. Any 12 persons in the Metropolitan area might under the Bill put the police in motion, who would thereupon be bound to prosecute any person frequenting or resorting to a place where numerous persons resorted for immoral purposes, and on a second conviction the offenders might be flogged. Of course, that was a very great draconic and stringent clause which could hardly be worked out well in practice, and he hoped hon. Members would cease to trouble him with questions about the action of the police if an enactment of the kind were passed. He trusted that that sort of remedy would not be regarded by the House as the best and wisest for its purpose. He felt the very great danger there would be in exposing a force like the Metropolitan Police, composed of

    947
    necessity of many men of indifferent culture and poor education, and not very highly paid, to the temptations which must inevitably accompany their coming into contact with the class of persons in question; and he thought that to expose them to it would be very undesirable. He sympathized largely with the object of the hon. Member who introduced that matter, and he recognized the honesty and frankness of the attempt made by the hon. Gentleman to deal with what was unquestionably a great social evil; but he gravely doubted whether those clauses would either be useful or adequate to cope with that evil.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he thought it would be almost impossible to exaggerate the importance of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, himself an acute lawyer, and also the Minister responsible in an especial degree for the administration of the police law in London. The right hon. Gentleman had laid it down that that was a great evil and a grave scandal, and that there was no doubt of its existence. Nobody, he supposed, would deny that the state of the streets of London was a disgrace to the Metropolis, or that the evil was one which it was worthy of the House to attempt to put down. As an hon. Member had intimated, the evil caused great temptation to young persons at a critical period of life. But the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had fully admitted the existence of that great evil, and that it was not necessary in those cases to prove annoyance to a particular person who had been solicited. He understood him to say that the law could be put in force by any ratepayer or householder living in the locality that complained of the evil and also by the police who represented the public in that matter. The right hon. Gentleman had also laid it down that it was the business and the duty of the police to endeavour to remedy the evil. That had not hitherto been the prevailing rule in the administration of the law in London; but as the right hon. Gentleman said that if the scandal could be abated by the police it was their duty to do so, he thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Acland) might be content with that statement and call upon the right hon. Gentleman to carry out what
    948
    he had intimated that night. He (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) was sure that nobody on his side desired draconic legislation or espionage, or to make people moral by Act of Parliament; but they desired to prevent people from being made immoral by maladministration or the neglect to administer the existing law. The whole question was now placed on a different platform; they knew whore the power rested and who was responsible if the law was not put in force. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that a midnight meeting was not promotive of purity; but it had long been the custom with a large body of Nonconformists, and also with many English Churchmen, to hold on the last night of the year religious services, which closed shortly after midnight; and it was a disgrace to London that decent men and women on going out from religious service at Piccadilly should have been exposed to the annoyance which an hon. Member had described. He honed that the House had that evening taken one step towards clearing the streets of London from disgrace.
    SIR ROBERT FOWLERsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) had intimated that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had in his speech that night taken a new view of the law. Now, for himself he believed the law had not been carried out outside the City of London, but the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was the view of the law on which he had acted while he was at the Mansion House when persons were brought up on the charge of solicitation, and which was taken by other City magistrates. He trusted that the result of that debate would be to induce Metropolitan magistrates to be more strict in carrying out the law.
    MR. C. T. DYKE ACLANDsaid, that after the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary as to what was the present state of the law, he would move that the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill be discharged.
    Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill withdrawn.

  MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (BELFAST) BILL.— [BILL 138.]
  (Mr. De Cobain, Mr. Esslemont, Mr. O' Neill, Mr. Fenwick.)
  MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (BELFAST) BILL.— [BILL 138.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. DE COBAIN, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he regretted to be obliged to occupy the time of the House in referring to the most unsatisfactory and anomalous condition of things produced by the Act of last Session extending the municipal franchise of Belfast. By that Act a portion of the clause of the original Act had been repealed, leaving that part of it still in force which provided for personal rating; the effect of this was to withhold the franchise from all occupiers of premises rated at £4 and under, and only to admit those who occupied premises valued above £4 to the privilege of the franchise. He opposed an arbitrary line being drawn at £4, and the effect of the Bill which he now proposed should be read a second time was to confer the franchise upon all household occupiers. The present polling machinery was very imperfect, and, as an example of that, he might mention that in one of the large wards of Belfast, where there were 7,000 electors, there was only one polling place, which necessitated working men travelling a distance of two miles in order to record their votes. The Bill provided that the same polling accommodation should be given as was found necessary for Parliamentary purposes. The Bill also provided that the Parliamentary and municipal revision should take place at one Court, and that there should be one Court for both, and that the Revising Barristers would have power to deal with both lists together, of course having a separate list of women householders, who, by the recent Act, were entitled to the municipal franchise, separately dealt with. This would result in a considerable saving of public expenditure. As the passing of this Bill was essential to make the one recently dealt with workable, he hoped the House would show its confidence in the working classes of the great constituency he had the honour to represent by accepting its provisions. He
    950
    begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. De Cobain.)
    SIR JAMES CORRYsaid, he feared that the hon. Member did not quite understand the difference between the Parliamentary and the municipal franchise. The effect of the Bill of last year was to raise the municipal franchise of Belfast from 6,000 to 26,000, and no objection had been taken to the Bill of last year except by the hon. Member himself. The fact was that the Parliamentary franchise included £10 rated occupiers, while the municipal franchise did not. The Parliamentary franchise included those who occupied part of a dwelling house, while this municipal franchise did not. The municipal franchise required personal rating, which the proposed Bill did not. As the question was settled last year, he thought it was too bad that the House should be asked again so soon to deal with it. He therefore had no alternative but to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words, "upon this day six months."—( Sir James Corry.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he hoped the House would agree to read the Bill a second time. Both franchises were exceedingly wide, but not identical, with the result that there were, as had been stated, two revisions required for the Parliamentary and the municipal list of voters. That caused very heavy expense not only to the ratepayers as a body, but also very heavy expense to the political Parties who had to watch the registrations. It seemed to him a great anomaly that a man might have a vote for borough purposes, and that the same person might not have a vote for municipal purposes. The Party to which the hon. Gentleman who moved the second reading belonged would, he believed, gain much more than the Nationalist Party if the House passed the Bill; but, notwithstanding that, he thought it very desirable that the franchise should be extended as far as possible. The only

    951
    objection he had to the Bill was that it only applied to one borough—namely, the Borough of Belfast. He would be much better pleased if the Bill could be extended to the other municipal boroughs in Ireland.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had defended the Bill, on the grounds that it would be a great convenience to have one list for Parliamentary and municipal elections; but even that object would not be attained by the present Bill, because there would still be a women householders' list required in addition. There would be two lists at any rate. But further, his hon. Friend who moved the second reading (Mr. De Cobain) was aware that in the existing Parliamentary franchise there was what was known as the "service franchise." It was not very clear from the Bill whether the hon. Member intended to include the service franchise in the municipal franchise or not. If he did not, the object which the hon. Gentleman desired to obtain—namely, that of having one list of voters for the two elections—would not be obtained. If the hon. Gentleman did mean to give the service franchise for municipal purposes, he (the Chief Secretary) must point out that they would be introducing into local government a franchise which was wholly divorced from the payment of rates. His right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) had introduced a Local Government Bill on a very wide basis indeed, but its franchise was a rating franchise, as in his opinion every franchise for local purposes ought to be. His hon. Friend now wished to go further than that, and to introduce a system which he (Mr. Balfour) thought they ought never to accept—one which would hand over to persons who did not contribute directly or indirectly to local expenditure, the management of local affairs. That was a principle which had never yet been sanctioned by the House, and he hoped it never would be, because it would certainly lead to gross extravagance and propably to gross mismanagement. That was not the time, and neither did he wish, to enter upon a lengthy discussion as to the principle which should regulate the franchise in local affairs, but he
    952
    based his opposition on the opinion of every responsible statesman and of every responsible Party in that House—namely, that contribution to local rates should be a condition to the exercising of the local franchise, and on that ground he concurred with the Motion of his hon. Friend behind him (Sir James Corry). He also agreed with what the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Biggar) had said, that if they were going to alter the municipal franchise they should apply such a measure to the whole of Ireland. The municipal franchise of Belfast was altered last year, and the Bill applied to Belfast only because it was associated with another Bill to deal with a very large question of local expenditure. He was not going to say that that was not a sufficient excuse; but no excuse of the kind now existed. He would impress upon the House the extreme inexpediency of dealing with such a question of local government for Ireland by a Bill that applied to only one town in Ireland, and for that reason as well as for the others he had stated, he hoped his hon. Friend would not think it necessary to press the Bill on the house at that particular juncture.
    MR. DE COBAINsaid, that the question of the service franchise could be dealt with in Committee.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he quite sympathized with the hon. Member who introduced the Bill; but to give every lodger on the Parliamentary list the right to vote at municipal elections, was a principle he could not accept. If the hon. Member (Mr. De Cobain) had estranged many Members on that side of the House who otherwise sympathized with him, he must only blame himself for the careless drawing of his Bill.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 80; Noes 162: Majority 82.—(Div. List, No. 64.)
    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Second Reading put off for six months.

  WAGES (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 139.]
  (Mr. De Cobain, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Howell.)
  WAGES (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 139.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. DE COBAINsaid, the Bill he had now the honour to move provided for the weekly payment of wages to workmen in Ireland. It was in the recollection of hon. Members that last year, when the Truck Bill, introduced by the hon Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), was under discussion, an Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) providing for the payment of wages weekly was carried by a large majority, but it did not ultimately find a place in the Act. This Bill carried out the object of that Amendment, with the exception of making it optional with the employer to give 75 per cent of the wages due to the workmen for piece work on the alternate week, and to hold over the final settlement for a fortnight. He trusted the alternative he had introduced would meet the difficulties raised by the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) to the principle of weekly payment of wages when it was raised last year. He hoped hon. Members would recognize the claims of the working classes upon the sympathy of the Legislature. The hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Sinclair), who had given Notice that he would move the rejection of the Bill, objected to the restricted operation of the measure. If the Bill were allowed to go into Committee, he (Mr. De Cobain) would have no objection to the principle being extended to all parts of the United Kingdom. If the weekly payment of wages would enable the working class to spend with greater economy the money which they earned with so much hard toil, the House ought not to hesitate to agree to the second reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. De Cobain.)
    SIR JAMES CORRYsaid, it fell to his lot to oppose the hon. Member upon this Bill also, and he begged to move that the Bill be read a second time upon that day six months. The question of weekly payment of wages was thoroughly discussed last year upon the Truck Bill, brought in by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh). The fact was that this Bill was aimed at one particular firm in Belfast, a firm which had done more for the prosperity of Belfast than any other
    954
    firm, because there happened to be last year a strike in reference to this very point. The strike was soon settled, and the workmen were perfectly satisfied they were wrong in asking for the weekly payment of wages. It was stated last year that in some of the Clyde shipbuilding yards, wages were paid weekly; but, as a matter of fact, in the majority of the Clyde yards wages were paid fortnightly. It was certainly very unreasonable that the principle of the weekly payment of wages should be extended to Ireland only. Personally, he was in favour of paying wages weekly, and he very strongly objected to Ireland being singled out as the field for the operation of such a Bill as this.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Sir James Corry.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. EDWARD HARRINGTONsaid, that if the hon. Baronet (Sir James Corry) was in favour of the weekly payment of wages, he had a very queer way of showing it. This Bill suggested a sensible and rational and radical, though not revolutionary, arrangement in the payment of wages. Much was said about the necessity of improving the condition of the working man. In his (Mr. E. Harrington's) opinion, the first best thing to do was to give the working man some chance of feeling his own power. One way to do that was to provide that a workman should, at the end of a week, be able to draw the wages he had earned during the week, and thus be able to meet the liabilities which he had, by the very necessities of his existence, incurred. At present they made the working man dependent upon others. If the hon. Baronet was sincere in his professions, he ought to vote for the second reading of the Bill. The 2nd clause provided that—
    "Where the engagement is not by time, but for piece work, it shall be lawful for the workman if not paid weekly to claim in each alternate week at least 75 per cent of the wages earned and a settlement in full every fortnight of the amount due for wages."
    As a matter of fact, if business arrangements would permit of it, a working man was entitled to his wages each

    955
    evening. As a rule, however, a certain hour was set apart weekly for the payment of wages. They would never recognize fully the justice of the working man's claim until they gave him the absolute right to draw at the end of a week his week's earnings. That was not an exorbitant claim. There was nothing in this claim that would upset the Constitution. It might be said it was better for the working man that the payment of his wages should be delayed; that he should be paid at the end of a month, or at the end of a quarter. How would the working man live under such circumstances? He lived from hand to mouth, and, if paid weekly, he of necessity was a week in debt. If paid monthly, he would be a month in debt; if paid quarterly, he would be a quarter in debt. The longer they delayed the payment of his wages, the more injury they would do him. The hon. Baronet said that this was a measure directed at one firm in Ireland only, and that that firm had done much for Belfast. He (Mr. Edward Harrington) willingly acknowledged that the shipbuilding firm of Harland and Wolff was a credit to Ireland. He wished that in the South of Ireland they could boast of a similar firm; and he denied that, so far as he was concerned, in the remarks he was addressing to the House there was any spirit of animus towards any one firm in Ireland. But if one firm took a different view from the community at large, it might be assumed that that firm was wrong. As to the principle of paying a working man at the end of a week the wages he had earned in the week, there ought to be no question. If one of the protégés of any of the hon. Members opposite held a Government contract, and tomorrow he represented to the Department through whom he did the work that he had done so much work, he would be entitled to 75 per cent of the earned money. Would they allow a working man to draw at the end of the week 75 per cent of his earnings? He left this practical question to the consciences of hon. Members.
    MR. FENWICKsaid, he hoped the House would consent to read the Bill a second time. It was within the recollection of the House that the principle of this Bill was fully discussed last Session, on an Amendment moved by the hon. Member
    956
    for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) to the Truck Bill. He should not, therefore, take up the time of the House by any lengthened remarks on the subject now. The objection taken to the Bill by the hon. Baronet (Sir James Corry) was that it was not to be applicable to all trades in all parts of the United Kingdom. But the hon. Gentleman who was in charge of the Bill was quite prepared in Committee to extend the principle to the United Kingdom generally. It would be readily admitted, on both sides of the House, that those who were most competent to speak on this question were the workmen themselves, and at the Trades Union Congress at Swansea, at which every trade in the United Kingdom was represented, a resolution in favour of the principle of the weekly payment of wages was passed unanimously. Surely the time had come that working men should be able to claim at the end of the week the wages they had earned. In all large factories and workshops wages were paid weekly, and he believed he spoke accurately when he said that at some collieries wages were also paid weekly. No valid reason could be given against the principle; and, therefore, he hoped hon. Members would agree to the second reading or the Bill.
    MR. SINCLAIRsaid, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. De Cobain) who moved the second reading of the Bill said he was prepared in Committee to agree to an Amendment extending the principle of the measure to the Three Kingdoms. It was a pity the hon. Gentleman had allowed the Bill to be drafted in its present form. This was the second Bill the hon. Gentleman had had charge of that night. The last Bill was largely lost through bad drafting, and he suspected this Bill would be lost for a like reason. This was simply an attempt to carry into legislative effect the Amendment that was proposed last year by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton). That Amendment merely applied to Ireland. In the first instance it was carried; but, ultimately, it was not retained in the Truck Bill of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh).
    MR. DE COBAINsaid, the Amendment was carried by a large majority, but was struck out in the House of Lords.
    MR. SINCLAIRsaid, the Amendment was passed in the first instance, but ultimately it was not pressed.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that as he had charge of the Truck Bill, he might be allowed to say that the Amendment was carried in this House by a large majority, struck out in the House of Lords, renewed here, and carried unanimously.
    MR. SINCLAIRsaid, the statement of the hon. Member (Mr. Bradlaugh) did not in the least differ from what he meant to convey. What he meant to convey was that when the Amendment was struck out by the House of Lords, there was no insistance in the attempt made to make it part of the law of the land. This Bill was an attempt, as he had said, to give legislative effect to that Amendment. He opposed the Amendment last year, and he opposed it now, on the ground, and on this ground only, that it was sought to apply the principle of weekly payment of wages to one town, and, practically, to one industry in the United Kingdom only. If a Bill was brought in to provide for weekly payment of wages in ship building yards generally—and it was only in the shipbuilding yard of Messrs. Harland and Wolff that this Bill was intended to operate—he would vote for it; but he would not vote for a Bill which would compel the compulsory payment of wages weekly in one shipbuilding yard only. It would not be at all fair to introduce piecemeal legislation of this kind, and whilst he had always been in favour of payment of wages weekly, he was not in favour of it in one trade in one town.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, he considered that this was a very retrograde measure. The working classes were quite able to settle themselves how they would have their wages paid. They did not want to make the working classes more dependent upon the House of Commons than they were at present. To interfere with men who were able in all affairs to look after their interests in the best possible manner seemed altogether wrong in principle. Payment of wages weekly was almost universal. Where it did not prevail, there was generally some reason why it should not be so which was understood by both employers and employed.
    SIR JOHN SWINBURNEsaid, he hoped the Government would support the Bill. In Her Majesty's Dockyards wages were paid every week on Fridays, and nothing conduced more to sobriety, industry, and regularity than such a system. In one of Her Majesty's Dockyards he had seen upwards of 4,000 men paid their weekly wages in half an hour. Some of these men had been working on piece work; some at a rate per hour, working many hours of overtime to meet emergencies; while others were paid by the day. There could be no difficulty or inconvenience in carrying out an arrangement which so greatly promoted the welfare of the working classes.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, the hon. Gentleman (Sir John Swinburne) appeared to think that the more preference of the Government and of Members of the House for one particular method of paying wages was a good reason for giving legislative sanction to that system, and making its adoption obligatory upon every employer of labour. He (Mr. A. J. Balfour) was unwilling to put himself in opposition, for a second time, to his hon. Friend the Member for East Belfast (Mr. De Cobain), but he thought there were one or two very obvious considerations which had been more or less fairly put before the House in the course of the debate, which ought to make any hon. Member hesitate before he supported this Bill. Everyone would admit that unnecessary interference between workmen and employer was to be deprecated. They had a great example of interference in the case of the Truck Acts, but the Truck Acts were intended to stop fraud. There was no pretence that there was any fraud committed by employers on the workmen when they paid them fortnightly, any more than when they paid them weekly. If the House agreed, and he thought they did, that unnecessary interference was to be avoided, he asked them also to accept a second proposition, which was that if interference of any kind was to be attempted, it should only be attempted after very careful inquiry into the case made out by the workmen on the one side, and by the employers on the other side. The hon. Member for the Wansbeck

    959
    Division of Northumberland (Mr. Fenwick) told the House that the workmen at the Trades Union Congress at Swansea were unanimous in favour of wages being paid weekly; but the House did not know the grounds on which the decision was arrived at and what the employers had to urge against the views which hon. Gentlemen supported. Then if these two propositions were accepted, there was a third proposition which he asked the House to accept also, which was, that if they were going to interfere between workmen and employers in matters not connected with fraud, and in matters in which they might suppose workmen were perfectly able to protect themselves, the interference should be general in its character, equally applied to every industry, and to every part of the United Kingdom. It was obvious on the face of the Bill that the interference here proposed was not general in its character, but confined to Ireland, and it was a matter of notoriety, though not obvious on the face of the Bill, that this particular provision was directed by his hon. Friend against one particular firm in Belfast.
    MR. DE COBAINsaid, that the statement was made last year, and he had heard it with great regret, indeed, that this Amendment of the Truck Acts was directed against one firm. That statement was made by a local gentleman, who must have been
    aware of the fact that it was entirely incorrect. There were three shipbuilding firms in Belfast. Besides that, the principle of fortnightly payments was extended to other industries, so this Bill was not aimed at one firm.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he was not aware whether the Bill was or was not directed against one firm; but it was on the confession of the hon. Gentleman directed against one particular industry in one particular town. It would be admitted that interference between employers and their servants, in the matter of a contract which was binding, was a principle which the House ought not to accept without full inquiry into the matter. He presumed that some advantage was to be gained by the shipbuilders in Belfast adopting the system of fortnightly payment, in competition with their rivals in the same trade in other parts of the Kingdom. There was no industry in which com-
    960
    petition had been keener than in that of shipbuilding. Over production had taken place in that as well as in other industries, and there had been the closest competition between shipbuilding on the Clyde, the Thames, and at Belfast, and nothing could be more unfair, in the first place, to the employer, and, in the second place, to the employed, than to say to one particular manufacturer, "You shall not pay your men fortnightly," while you allow their competitors in London and elsewhere to pay their men as they pleased. He earnestly pressed the House not to pass a Bill aimed against a particular set of firms in a particular town, until steps had been taken to inquire into the whole subject and an effort made to find out whether or not it was to the interest of the working classes of the country that it should be obligatory on employers to pay men by the week. If the result of that investigation should be that such interference with private contract was desirable, it would then be necessary to introduce a Bill applicable to every part of the United Kingdom and to every industry.
    MR. T. P. GILLsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had spoken as if he had forgotten that the House had on two occasions by a large majority sanctioned the principle of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of interference between the employer and the employed; but he (Mr. Gill) would like to know what interference was provide, for in this Bill, which was simply to enable workmen to claim payment for work and labour done. How that could be considered as interference in the sense spoken of by the right hon. Gentleman he was at a loss to understand. The question was, whether or not the workman having done his work was entitled to his wages, and all that the Bill did was to guarantee this right. The right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members said that the employer derived some advantage from the existing practice. Of course he did, or he would not insist upon it; but were they to consider the advantage of the employer alone? The workman claimed to have a certain advantage in being paid weekly, and he (Mr. Gill) said that he had a right to be considered, and that his right to payment weekly could not be disputed. These men who were living from hand to mouth were in debt to the shop-

    961
    keepers, under the present system, and by refusing them their wages weekly they were defrauded by their employers to the extent of a week's wages.
    SIR WILLIAM EWARTsaid, as one of the Members for Belfast it was his duty to say a few words on the Bill. It was very true, as the hon. Member opposite said, that the Bill could be extended in Committee; but the question was too large, in his opinion, to be settled in that manner. The hon. Member had made out for the Bill no case whatever. The Bill was not demanded by the people of Ireland; it was erroneously believed that it was aimed alone at shipbuilding yards, and he thought the House would hesitate long before it established an anomaly such as that which would be created by it. It would create confusion throughout the whole country by making it imperative that wages should be paid weekly.
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid, that although the Bill referred to Ireland, it contained a principle which, if it were sanctioned by the House of Commons, would very soon spread across the water to Great Britain.
    MR. BUCHANANrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put accordingly, "That the Question be now put."
    The House divided:—Ayes 174; Noes 68: Majority 106.—(Div. List, No. 65.)
    Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    The House divided:—Ayes 96; Noes 143: Majority 47.—(Div. List, No. 66.)
    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Bill put off for six months.

  WAYS AND MEANS.—REPORT.

    CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.
    Resolutions [April 9] reported.
    MR. MUNDELLAasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when it was proposed to bring the Cart Wheel Tax into operation, and
    962
    also when the duty on the new issue of capital by Companies would come into operation? Would these come into operation on the confirmation of the Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means, or not until the Budget Bill was passed?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square)said, the Licence Duties on horses and carts would come into operation on the 1st of January next year with other licence duties. He was extremely anxious to make good progress with the Budget Bill, so that the Revenue might, without delay, have the advantage of dealing with the now issues of capital by Companies. He understood that Companies were now issuing their capital as fast as possible, in order to escape taxation; and he hoped he would receive the support of the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends in the effort to pass the Bill through the House as soon as possible.
    Resolutions agreed to.
    Ordered, That a Bill be brought in upon the Seventh Resolution, and that Mr. Courtney, Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Jackson do prepare and bring it in.
    Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Gentlemen appointed to prepare and bring in a Bill upon the Resolution reported from the Committee of Ways and Means on the 27th day of March, and then agreed to by the House, That they do make provision therein pursuant to the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Resolutions.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 202.]
    House adjourned at twenty minutes after Twelve o'clock.