Sitting of 26 July 1888

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Police and Sanitary Regulations [No. 300].
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Pluralities Acts Amendment Act, 1885, Amendment* [349].
Considered as amended—Local Government (England and Wales) [338], debate adjourned.

QUESTIONS.

  LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND) ACT, 1885 (LORD ASHBOURNE'S)—RESULTS.
  MR. W. P. SINCLAIR&c.)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any advances for the purchase of their holdings under Lord Ashbourne's Land Purchase Act have been made to tenants in districts which were disturbed at the time of such advances being sanctioned; whether, since these advances have been made, the work of the police in maintaining order has been rendered less difficult; whether he has information to show that in such districts an increased

  517
  desire is now evinced among those who have not availed themselves yet of the benefits of the Act to do so; and, further, if the proportion of arrears still outstanding in such districts is on as low a scale proportionately as over the rest of Ireland?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I find that it is the case that in disturbed districts where advances have been made to tenants under the Land Purchase Act, these districts have shown improvement, and a strong disinclination is evinced by the new owners to join Secret Societies or take part in any agitation. The Land Purchase Commissioners also report that in all districts where sales were effected in the earlier stages of the Act there is an increasing desire to purchase. The reply to the concluding portion of the Question appears to be in the affirmative.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYasked, on whose authority the right hon. Gentleman made these statements; and whether he had sought for information from the Land Commissioners or the police?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have sought information from all the sources from which I thought it could be obtained.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYwished to know whether they were to understand that the right hon. Gentleman's information was based on any statement made to him by the Land Commissioners?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The opinion of the Land Commission, among other opinions, is worthy of consideration; but I do not propose to state to the House, in answer to a Question, the sources from which I derive my information.
  MR. W. REDMONDinquired, whether it was not the fact that the tenants who purchased their holdings under Lord Ashbourne's Act were now complaining that the prices which they paid were altogether too high?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not heard anything of the kind. I have received no information to that effect.
  MR. W. P. SINCLAIRasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman was able now to state what the intentions of the Government were with regard to providing further funds for enabling the Commis-
  518
  sioners under the Land Purchase Act to carry on the work which had proved so successful in the past?
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: As the answer to this Question is apparently to be made the basis for further legislation on the question of land purchase, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will lay upon the Table a Return in support of the views which he has put forward in regard to these districts?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly aware that we cannot support by Returns all the views which we may put forward in this House; that is not, from the nature of the case, possible. I have not given my answer as the basis of further legislation. When we propose further legislation to the House—which, I may say in answer to my hon. Friend, it is the intention of the Government to do in the course of the Session—I do not say before the Recess, but before the Prorogation—when I bring forward the Bill, I shall state the grounds upon which we shall ask the House to accept our proposals.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)— COUNTY CESS COLLECTORS, CO. ANTRIM.
  MR. W. P. SINCLAIR&c.)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the appointment recently made by the Grand Jury of County Antrim of a county cess collector for the Barony of Lower Toome; whether the gentleman appointed, Mr. Richard Davidson, had offered to collect these rates at 9d. in the £1, while the unsuccessful candidate, Mr. John Hill, was prepared to collect the same rates at 4½d. in the £1; whether it is the fact that Mr. Hill had been the sub-collector for some years for the rates in this barony, and if any complaint was ever made against him as to the manner in which his work was done, or if any objection was raised as to the character of the security now offered on his behalf; whether the collector now appointed holds his position for one year only, or for any specially defined time; and, if he will urge upon the Grand Jury the duty of carefully considering, in the interests of the ratepayers, the rate of poundage paid to collectors appointed?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have

  519
  no official knowledge of the matters referred to in the Question, inasmuch as the Government have no control over the actions, whether administrative or judicial, of Grand Juries. I, however, caused the Question to be brought under the notice of the Secretary to the Grand Jury in case they desired to make any observations. He informed me that the Grand Jury were discharged several days ago; that Mr. Hill held no appointment under them, but a private position under their collector; also that the collectors of cess hold their position from one Assize to the next only, and that the Grand Jury have appointed a Committee to consider what rate of remuneration should, in future, be given to cess collectors, the Committee to report at next Assizes. I further understand that, in considering the applications of Messrs. Dawson and Hill for appointment, the question of poundage rate did not arise, inasmuch as the then existing rate of 9d. had been fixed for some years past, in accordance with the recommendation made by a former Committee of the Grand Jury which inquired into the matter.
  MR. W. P. SINCLAIRdesired to ask whether it was not a fact that the gentleman who was appointed was appointed at the rate of 9d. in the £1 to collect the cess; whereas the gentleman who was not appointed had offered to collect it at 4½d. in the £1?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he was afraid he could not answer that Question without Notice; but if the hon. Gentleman wished it he would put a further Question to the Secretary of the Grand Jury on the matter.
  MR. W. P. SINCLAIRpointed out that Notice of this Question was comprised in the Notice on the Paper.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsupposed then that the Grand Jury did not think it necessary to give him the information. He had no control over that Body.
  THE LORD MAYOR, of DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked the Solicitor General for Ireland, whether the accounts of the Grand Juries in Ireland were not audited by a public auditor; and if it was not in the power of the auditor to surcharge the Grand Jury in such a case as this, where they corruptly paid double the necessary sum to an official; and also whether it was
  520
  not in the power of the Judges at Assize to disallow these over charges?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)said, it was not the function of the auditor to go behind the appointments made made by the Grand Jury.
  MR. SEXTONasked, was it not a fact that in the case of Municipal Bodies the Local Government Board claimed the power of surcharging under similar circumstances?
  MR. MADDENsaid, that was a different case altogether. The auditor must go on the basis that this is a proper and legal appointment, and he could not possibly go behind the action of the Grand Jury in that respect.
  MR. W. P. SINCLAIRsaid, that amongst the papers which had been sent in to him since he put this Question was the actual tender made to collect the cess at the rate of 4½d. in the £1, which he now held in his hand.

  IMPERIAL DEFENCE—BERMUDA— CABLE COMMUNICATION—TERMINABLE ANNUITIES.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Why, in such cases as the laying down of a telegraphic cable between Halifax and the great Atlantic arsenal, port, and depôt of Bermuda, and in other similarly urgent cases of essential necessity, the Government do not act upon the recommendation of the late Select Committee on Harbours, and raise the money needed by the issue of Terminable Annuities having 99 years to run?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN), in reply, said, he could not conceive any course that would be more contrary to sound finance than to borrow on Annuities having 99 years to run for a submarine cable between Halifax and Bermuda, the life of which would be infinitely shorter than that of the loan.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—STRATFORD PETTY SESSIONS—ILLEGAL SENTENCE.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that the Justices at Stratford Petty Ses-

  521
  sions on Friday, July 13, are reported to have sentenced Charles Edwards, aged 10, to be sent to a reformatory school for six years; and, whether, inasmuch as the 29 & 30 Vict. c. 117, s. 14, limits the power of Justices in such cases to not more than five years, he will take any action in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS), in reply, said, the sentence passed on Charles Edwards was in excess of the statutory power, and was wholly void; and he had, therefore, been compelled reluctantly to order the boy's discharge.

  ADMIRALTY—H.M.S. "SULTAN"—THE BRITISH STEAMER "NITH"—COMPENSATION.
  MR. LEATHAM BRIGHTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government will make such representations to the French Government as will ensure some compensation being given to the crew of the Nith, run down in the Tagus on April 7, 1884; whether the crew have, by this collision, lost all their effects; and, whether it would be possible to persuade the French Government to act in the same generous spirit that actuated the Government in making compensation for the damage done by H.M.S. Sultan, under similar circumstances?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The facts of the case are well-known to the Secretary of State, and were brought to his notice by the owners of the Nith about six months ago. They are as stated in a Question to the First Lord of the Admiralty on Monday last. It was explained to the owners that there is no ground for diplomatic interference in the case, which we believe to have been decided in the Court of Appeal at Rouen according to law. It would not be proper to ask the French Government to make voluntary compensation to the owners of the Nith, as Her Majesty's Government made a compassionate grant to the sufferers by the accident in the Tagus referred to, seeing that in the present ease the ship which caused the damage was the property, not of the State, but of a private Company. The hon. Member will see that Her Majesty's Government could not ask Parliament to make
  522
  a grant on account of the loss of a French vessel through the act of a British Steamship Company which had successfully defended itself in an action at law.

  NAVY—THE ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE.
  MR. LEATHAM BRIGHTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is the custom of the Government to take any note of charges of misconduct made against individuals holding commissions in the Naval Reserve; and, whether an individual against whom such charges have been made, to the knowledge of the Government, can still in times of emergency obtain a command in Her Majesty's Navy?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): Up to the present time I am not aware that any charges of misconduct have been brought against any officers of the Royal Naval Reserve. The Admiralty are empowered, under the Regulations, to dismiss from the Service any officer against whom a charge derogatory to his position as such has been substantiated. This punishment, if incurred, would debar him from employment in Her Majesty's Navy, either in command or otherwise.

  BANKRUPTCY ACT—WEST LONDON COMMERCIAL BANK IN LIQUIDATION.
  MR. WHITMOREasked Mr. Solicitor General, Whether he is aware that no dividend has been paid to the creditors of the West London Commercial Bank since March 12 last; whether it is a fact that the official liquidator has been for some time in a position to pay a second dividend of 4s. 6d. in the £1; and, whether he will bring pressure to bear upon the liquidator to pay such second dividend at once, and further dividends as quickly as may be possible?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE), in reply, said, that since March last a dividend of 8s. in the £1 had been paid to the creditors of the bank, and considerable progress had been made in the winding up. In the course of a few days a further dividend would be paid, which, with that already paid, would make a total of 13 s. in the

  523
  £1. Every diligence was being used by the liquidator in the matter.

  CATTLE DISEASES ACTS (IRELAND)— PERSONS CHARGED WITH OFFENCES.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will grant a Return of the number of persons charged with offences under the Cattle Diseases Acts during the 12 months ending July 31, 1888, showing the names of the persons charged; the nature of the alleged offences; the counties in which they occurred; the decision of the Court in each case; and the names of the magistrates who adjudicated thereon?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, he found that the preparation of a Return of the nature suggested would involve obtaining Reports from each of upwards of 600 Petty Sessions Clerks, while, apparently, the object of the Return was mainly to further an attack which was recently made on the decisions come to by a particular magistrate in the execution of a particular discretion conferred by statute. He, therefore, did not consider it a Return which the Government could consent to give.

  SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT— LACE MAKING IN IRELAND.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether Mr. Alan Cole's lectures on design in respect of Irish lace making, and his inspections of Art classes at lace making centres in Ireland, as reported in recent Annual Reports of the Department of Science and Art, have been permanently discontinued; whether the Irish Government and the Local Committees of the lace making schools and convents in Ireland have urged that the lectures and inspections should be continued; and, whether directions will be given for the continuance of Mr. Cole's lectures and inspections?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON), in reply, said, that, as the hon. Gentleman was aware, a lady Inspectress had been appointed, and it was believed that it would be unnecessary, therefore, to continue the inspec-
  524
  tion by Mr. A. Cole. He thought, however, that arrangements might be made under which Mr. Cole should continue to give some lectures; though the Treasury would think it necessary to limit the number.

  CLERKS OF SESSION BILL—SHERIFF DEPUTE.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he will agree to the insertion of a clause into the Clerks of Session Bill providing for the appointment of a Depute by the Principal Sheriff Clerk, subject to the concurrence of the Lord Advocate, with a salary and pension payable by the Exchequer; and providing, further, that when a vacancy occurs in the Principal Clerkship a Depute shall be promoted to the office?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The matter referred to in the hon. and gallant Member's Question is one which is engaging my attention already; but I do not think it could be suitably dealt with in the Bill he refers to, which relates solely to the Court of Session.

  ISLAND OF JAVA—COMPULSORY MILITARY SERVICE IN THE AUXILIARY FORCE.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether a Petition, signed by British residents, bankers, and merchants in Java has been forwarded to the Secretary of State, setting forth the hardships to which they are exposed in the shape of compulsory military service in the Auxiliary Force called the Schuttery; whether all able-bodied Europeans and Eurasians in Java are enrolled in this Force; whether those physically incapacitated are taxed in lieu of service; whether those enrolled have to submit to be drilled by barefooted natives; whether non-attendance at drill are punished by fine and imprisonment; whether the United States Government have interfered to protect American citizens; and, whether the Government intend to do anything in the matter?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): I have already answered more than one similar Question. Ac-

  525
  cording to the information in the possession of Her Majesty's Government the first, second, and fourth Questions must be answered in the affirmative; as to the third and the fifth we have no information. As I have before stated, there is nothing in the Treaties between this country and the Netherlands to exempt British subjects resident in Dutch Colonies from service in the Militia.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR, further asked, if it were a fact that the Europeans in Java only formed about 10 per cent of the population; that though of these only a very small proportion were British subjects, yet they were practically the chief sources of revenue; whether they were subject to a ridiculous and vexatious system of fines; and whether they had to provide their own uniform?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he had no information about these particulars. Whatever their numbers were, British citizens living in a Dutch Colony must submit to the same obligations as the rest of the population.

  CHELSEA HOSPITAL—GEORGE WILLIAMS, A PENSIONER—ARREARS OF GOOD CONDUCT PAY.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he has yet been able to arrive at a satisfactory decision with regard to the arrears of pension due to pensioner Williams?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): It has be arranged that, pensioner Williams having been officially informed that he would receive arrears of pension amounting to £30 18 s. 4d., this sum shall be paid to him. It is the circumstance that notice was officially given to this pensioner that his arrears would be paid, though without the sanction of the Treasury, which forms the special feature in his case; and it, therefore, affords no precedent for the admission of similar claims in other instances.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—LETTER TO THE CLERK OF THE SCHOOL BOARD FOR LONDON.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education,
  526
  Whether the following letter, dated January 27, 1888, from the Education Department to the Clerk of the School Board for London, was written with his knowledge and approval:—
  "Sir,
  Adverting to your letter of the 24th inst., P.M. 7 2 4/8 8, I am directed to state that My Lords, in conducting the business of the Education Department, must act upon the ordinary rule that they notice only communications which are approved by the School Board. My Lords have no knowledge of, or concern with, the arrangements by which the School Board delegate their authority to Committees, nor can the Department accept the office of determining whether a Committee is or is not authorized to make any particular communication.
  If the Committee is acting within their authority it is the School Board who direct a letter to be written; if the Committee exceeds its authority the Communication is futile, and ought not to be answered.
  It is for the Committee to take upon themselves the responsibility of stating that the School Board have authorized or directed the communication to be made.
  I have the honour to be, Sir,
  Your obedient Servant,
  P. Cumin;"
  whether it was with his knowledge and approval that the following letter, dated July 4, was also sent from the Education Department to the Clerk to the London School Board:—
  "Sir,
  Referring to your letter, S.M. 13824/88, dated June 23, 1888, in which it is stated that the letter dated June 19 has been laid before the Board, and that you are directed by the School Board to forward to this Department a statement of————, I am to point out that at the meeting of the School Board, on June 21, the Board negatived a Resolution to allow the letter of the Department, dated June 19, to be read, and therefore it would appear that substantially that letter was not laid before the School Board.
  With reference to the statement that you were directed by the School Board to forward the statement of————, I am to point out that on June 21 the letter of this Department, dated the 19th, was referred to the School Management Committee for their consideration and report. On June 23 it is alleged that you received the instruction of the School Board to reply. As the School Board held no meeting between June 21 and June 23, My Lords are at a loss to understand how any instruction could have been given by the Board until a meeting was held at some later period.
  I am to request an explanation, and at the same time to express the desire of My Lords that this letter may be brought specifically to the notice of the School Board, so that they may have an opportunity of discussing it.
  (Signed) P. Cumin;"
  and, whether the Education Department

  527
  claims to inquire into, or to regulate the internal procedure of, the School Board for London in the transaction of its business, and in the proper delegation of its authority to its duly constituted Committees; and, if so, to what extent, or by virtue of what power conferred upon it by the Education Acts, or by any other statute, or otherwise; if so, why was the letter of January 27 written to the Board; if not, why was the letter of July 4 written to the Board?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): The object of the letter dated January 27, 1888, was to inform the Board that any official letters addressed to the Department must be written by the authority of the School Board, and not merely of a Committee. This Rule is now invariably acted upon. As to the letter of July 4, its object was to obtain some explanation of the fact that, while on one hand the Official Minutes of the School Board—which are, and always have been, regularly furnished to the Department—showed that the Board had not authorized any answer to the Department's letter of June 19, on the other hand, the School Board's letter of the 23rd declared that it had been written by the authority of the Board. The Department have since received an explanation from the School Board admitting that the letter of the 23rd was sent without the Board's authority, which, however, was given by them on June 28. I need hardly say that the Education Department make no such claim as that stated in the last paragraph of the Question.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—THE VANDELEUR EVICTIONS—MR. CECIL ROCHE, R.M.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, at the Vandeleur evictions last week, when Patrick, Thomas, Ellen, and Mary Cleary issued from a cabin to which entrance had been effected by the Emergency men, Mr. Cecil Roche, R.M., ordered the police to bring the above persons before him, seated himself on a stone wall, and committed them to prison; and, what are the Rules in force with respect to the times at, and places in, which Resident Magistrates have to perform their judicial functions?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. N. J. BALFOUR): I am informed that the facts are as stated in the Question, with the somewhat important exception that the women were not, as alleged, committed to prison. The duty of a magistrate requires him to deal on the spot with breaches of the peace committed in his presence.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked, in what capacity Mr. Cecil Roche was acting in these evictions; and, also, whether it was not the fact, as reported, that on seeing a man looking out of a window in one of the houses that gentleman said—"I see you, you rascal; you will surely have to go to gaol;" and, whether Mr. Cecil Roche made that observation in his capacity of a magistrate?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he had no grounds for believing the allegations that had been made against the magistrate.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYasked, what order Mr. Cecil Roche had made on the occasion in question?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he did not know.
  Mr. J. E. ELLISasked, whether Mr. Cecil Roche was not in charge of the police on the occasion referred to?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that he must ask the hon. Member to give Notice of his Question.

  ARMS (IRELAND) ACT—CONVICTION OF JAMES LEE, ABBEYFEALE PETTY SESSIONS.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, at the Petty Sessions at Abbeyfeale, on July 18, an Emergency man named James Lee, employed by Lord Guillamore, was convicted of presenting a loaded revolver at certain persons, and of being drunk whilst in the possession of loaded fire-arms; whether, on the same occasion, an Emergency man named Mullinock was also convicted of being drunk whilst in the possession of loaded fire-arms; whether the Resident Magistrate remarked that these men came from the Property Defence Association, and on the recommendation of their employer obtained licences to carry arms, which they abused; whether the

  529
  licences of these men have been revoked; and, whether the Government will give such instructions with respect to licences for fire-arms as will prevent such cases in the future?
  MR. W. ABRAHAMsaid, before the right hon. Gentleman answered that Question, he should ask the permission of the House to read a passage from a letter which he had received from the Rev. William Casey, the priest at Abbeyfeale.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is not in Order on the Question.
  MR. W. ABRAHAMthen asked the Chief Secretary, whether he was aware that there were eight or 10 of these Emergency men at Abbeyfeale; and whether the people of the district were not in terror of their lives of them; and whether, as a fact, no interference whatever had been made by the people of Abbeyfeale with regard to these Emergency men?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, he was afraid he could not answer the Question. With regard to the Question on the Paper, he was informed that the facts were substantially as stated in the first two paragraphs. As regarded the third paragraph, he was informed that neither of the men was employed by the Property Defence Association. The licences of these two men were about to be revoked; and every care has been and will be taken by those responsible to secure, as far as possible, that licences are issued to proper persons only.
  MR. W. ABRAHAMasked, if the right hon. Gentleman denied that evidence was given to satisfy the magistrate that these men did belong to the Property Defence Association?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he was informed that they were not.
  MR. W. ABRAHAM: From whom did the right hon. Gentleman get that information?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whom they were employed by, for there are two cognate Associations, each of which is always repudiating the acts of the other?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know that they were employed by any Association.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—HEALTH OF MR. JOHN DILLON, M.P.
  MR. MACNEILLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true, as stated in a daily paper, that the Chief Secretary for Ireland is supplied with information, by telegraph, at stated periods, regarding the health of Mr. John Dillon, who is now in prison; and whether the right hon. Gentleman would have any objection to lay these bulletins upon the Table of the House?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Of course, the health of the hon. Member for East Mayo has been carefully looked after since his committal to prison. But there is no truth in the newspaper statement.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked, if it was the intention of the Irish Government to appear by counsel before the Court of Exchequer in Ireland to oppose the making absolute of the conditional order for a writ of habeas corpus in the case of Mr. John Dillon's imprisonment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, this was a matter which was left entirely to the discretion of the Attorney General for Ireland. As he understood, the Chief Baron considered that only one point had been raised by the affidavit which required to be argued.

  INDIA—ARMY MEDICAL SERVICE EXAMINATION.
  DR. TANNERasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If it is the case that the course of special instruction and ultimate examination hitherto required and passed by officers of the Indian Army Medical Service is to be abolished; whether the statement of the officer at the head of the Medical Service concerning the proposed change in the Bengal Presidency, quoted by The British Medical Journal, July 21, 1883, is correct—namely, that it is no longer necessary; what reasons are given for such change by the Indian Government; and, whether it is intended to substitute any other course for that it is proposed to abolish?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): With regard to the first and second para-

  531
  graphs of the hon. Member's Question, I have to state that no such decision has been arrived at. The matter is still under the consideration of the Secretary of State and the Government of India. In answer to the third paragraph, I have to state that the reason given in favour of change is that the special instruction can be given better and at less expense in India. In answer to the fourth paragraph, I have to state that if the present course were abolished a course of special instruction would be given in India.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— FEMALE TEACHERS.
  MR. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether there is any Rule of the Board of National Education in Ireland under which a female teacher is prohibited from living in the same house with her father or husband, if the dwelling happens to be a licensed premises?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The National Education Commissioners inform me that there is a fixed Rule prohibiting teachers from keeping, or living in, public-houses, or houses for the sale of spirituous liquors.

  LAW AND 'JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE JURY SYSTEM—ROMAN CATHOLIC SPECIAL JURORS, QUEEN'S COUNTY.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALDasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether all the Roman Catholic special jurors in Queen's County have recently been ordered to stand aside without cause shown, and for no other apparent reason than that they are Roman Catholics; whether of the entire population of the county 88 per cent are Roman Catholics; whether he is aware that a strong feeling of indignation exists among the special jurors; whether he is aware that a respectful but firm protest was presented on the 12th instant to Mr. Justice Johnson, the going Judge of Assize; whether the learned Judge told the Memorialists that the thing was "no business of his;" whether he will say whose business it is; and, whether he will take steps to prevent the exclusion of Roman Catholic jurors for the future?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): I am informed that the statements in the first and third paragraphs of the Question are entirely without foundation. A protest was presented to the going Judge of Assize, with the result stated in the Question; but the signatories to this protest were entirely mistaken in supposing that they, or any other jurors, were ordered to stand aside on account of their religion. No inquiries whatever were made as to the religion of jurors, nor is there any foundation for the suggestion that jurors were excluded because they were Roman Catholics. In reply to the sixth paragraph of the Question, I have to say that the Crown Solicitor's action as to jurors is regulated by a Code of Rules which was settled by the then Attorney General in 1867, and which has been since then adopted by his Successors in Office, and that the Crown Solicitors are responsible to the Attorney General for the observance of these Rules.
  MR. J. E. REDMONDasked whether, as a matter of fact, all the Catholic jurors, as they were called, were ordered to stand aside by the Crown in the case of a change of venue?
  MR. MADDENsaid, that he had no information on the point.
  MR. R. T. REID&c.)asked, if the Rules on the matter would be presented to the House?
  MR. MADDENreplied that if the hon. Gentleman wished for the Rules on this particular subject he would have no objection to lay them on the Table.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALDsaid, that in consequence of the unsatisfactory answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he begged to give Notice that he should draw attention to this subject on the Vote on Account for the Civil Service Estimates.
  MR. CHANCEasked, whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was in a position to state how many Roman Catholic jurors were summoned on these juries, and how many were ordered to stand aside?
  MR. MADDEN: Cetainly not, because no inquiry was made as to their religion.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYasked, whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would grant a Return giving the information?
  MR. MADDEN: No, Sir.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE JURY SYSTEM—WICKLOW ASSIZES.
  MR. W. CORBET, who had the following Question on the Paper:—To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that at the last Assizes held at Wicklow all Catholic jurors were excluded from the jury box in capital cases by the action of the Crown; and, whether any steps can be taken to prevent a recurrence of such exclusion?—asked, on a point of Order, whether the phrase "jury packing" was not an ordinary term? The last paragraph in the Question had been altered by the phrase "jury packing" being struck out.
  MR. SPEAKER: If I recollect aright, the term in which the hon. Gentleman used the expression was invidious. There was something besides these words if I recollect aright; but I am speaking from memory.
  MR. W. J. CORBET: I should really wish to know whether the terms of my Question put on the Paper were out of Order? I have not a copy of the Question with me; but, as well as I remember, the exact words were "whether the system commonly called jury packing prevailed?"
  MR. SPEAKER: If I recollect aright, the term used by the hon. Gentleman was invidious. I am speaking from memory, and the words were whether the system commonly called jury-packing was habitually enforced in the county? I thought that expression ought not to appear on the Paper, and I think so now.
  MR. W. J. CORBETthen asked the Question as it stood on the Paper.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have no knowledge of the religious denominations of jurors at last Wicklow Assizes.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Arising out of this Question, I wish to ask whether it is not an extraordinary coincidence that in almost every part of Ireland the Catholics are excluded from the juries?
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must say it seems to me that the practice
  534
  of putting supplemental Questions is being greatly abused to-day.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Might I be allowed to say, Sir——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Mr. Maurice Healy.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: What I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, in reference to the ignorance of the religion of the jury, is this—whether he is aware that the present Justice Holmes, when Irish Attorney General, was in a position to state to the Court of Queen's Bench what the relative religious beliefs of the jury panel was as a ground for not changing the venue from Omagh?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That Question does not arise out of the Question on the Paper; and, in the next place, it is not a Question I can answer.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—ACCOMMODATION FOR PRISONERS AWAITING TRIAL —MANCHESTER CITY COURT.
  MR. S. SMITHasked the Secretary of State to the Home Department, Whether it is correctly reported that in a Report from one of the Inspectors of Prisons there occurs the following description regarding the want of accommodation for prisoners awaiting trial at the Manchester City Court:—
  "In one of these rooms I saw 37 men huddled together, some sitting, others standing or leaning against the iron bars, looking out, talking and muttering words to one another that sounded very like oaths. In the middle of this crowd was a soldier in uniform, standing as far from the others as he could. In the women's room there were 18 associated. As many as 40 or 50 men, and from 20 to 30 women, occupy these rooms at a time;
  and, whether any steps have been taken to remedy this state of things?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS), in reply, said, the Report was correctly quoted. Soon after the Report was made he placed himself in communication with the Mayor of Manchester, and plans prepared by the city serveyor were now under the consideration of the authorities. He had further written to the Mayor suggesting that, pending the completion of the alterations, every endeavour should be made to remedy, by careful management, the state of things to which attention had been drawn.

  LABOURERS' ACTS (IRELAND)—"LAND LEAGUE HUT" AT MACROOM.
  MR. MACARTNEYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Guardians of the Macroom District have recently commenced to build a cottage, under the Labourers' Acts (Ireland), on a farm at Glownaglough, near Coachford, County Cork, formerly occupied by Denis Gleeson; whether, in order to recover the land, Denis Gleeson's landlord forgave £200 of arrears, paid a debt of £17, and gave Gleeson £32 10s., as well as his stock, to enable him to emigrate to America; whether, after Gleeson's return, he was supported by the local branch of the National League in a "Land League hut;" whether frequent outrages have taken place, in consequence of which the landlord has been unable to let the farm, and two policemen have been engaged on protection duty on it; whether, in December, 1887, Denis Gleeson was sentenced to 25 years' penal servitude for manslaughter of a man named Hayes; whether Mrs. Gleeson has been bound over several times to keep the peace at the Court at Coachford; whether she is the proposed occupant of the cottage now being erected; and, whether, since she has no children old enough to do agricultural work, and considering the agitation and disturbance caused by her presence, the Local Government Board in Ireland will take steps to secure the ratepayers from a misuse of the machinery of the Labourers' Acts?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The facts are all as stated by my hon. Friend. In my opinion, those facts show a gross abuse of the powers given under the Labourers' Act; and I greatly regret the Government have no power to interfere.
  DR. TANNER: Is he still in prison.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As he was sentenced in 1887 to 25 years' penal servitude, I should think he is.
  DR. TANNER: Is it not a fact that the Gleesons' rent was nearly double the valuation; that he spent a considerable sum of money in improving his land; and that, in spite of these facts, he was driven cruelly from his farm and thrown on the roadside?
  MR. CHANCEinquired, whether there had been any abuse by Local Authorities of the powers under the Act in which there was not an appeal to the Privy Council?
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: And was not the building of this cottage actually approved by the Local Government Board Inspector?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; but the question is not as to the building of the cottage, but as to the use which was made of it afterwards.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: It has not been built yet.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—KILLYBEGS PETTY SESSIONS DISTRICT.
  MR. MAC NEILLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in the Killybegs Petty Sessions District of the County of Donegal, there is not one Catholic magistrate, although more than 90 per cent of the population of the district are Roman Catholics; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to remedy this grievance?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have no knowledge of the religious denominations of the magistrates in the Petty Sessions district mentioned. But as has already been explained in reply to previous Questions on the subject of the religion of magistrates, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland is always anxious to consider the names of duly qualified Roman Catholics when properly submitted to him for appointment to the Commission of the Peace.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman deny that the statement contained in my Question is true—that not one of the magistrates upon the Bench at Killybegs is a Catholic? Will he inquire whether that statement is true?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will consider the matter. Of course, it is no business of mine. I will consider whether I will make any inquiry.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Are not magistrates appointed by the Lord Chancellor on the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant of the County? Can the Lord Chancellor appoint on the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant of the County?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot answer the Question in detail. The account the hon. Member has given is sufficient to prove my statement, and I have nothing to add to it.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. BROWNLOW, J.P., COUNTY DOWN.
  MR. CLANCYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that Mr. Brownlow, land agent to the Lord Lieutenant, who presided at the Orange demonstration on His Excellency's demesne at Mountstewart, County Down, on the 12th instant, is a Justice of the Peace for the County of Down, and if he will state the date of his appointment to the Commission of the Peace; whether his attention has been directed to the speech of Mr. Brownlow on that occasion, as reported in The Newtownards Chronicle of the 14th instant, where Mr. Brownlow, referring to Home Rule, threatened that—
  "Whoever may submit, the Orangemen of Ulster will stand together, and as our ancestors did of old we will if necessary do now;"
  whether, as reported in that paper, he also, in introducing to the meeting Mr. Adolphus Vane-Tempest, a cousin of His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, made use of the following words:—
  "They (the Orangemen) had His Excellency's best wishes. He could not be here himself, but he had done the next best thing and sent his cousin;"
  whether this is the same Mr. Brownlow who was reported in The Belfast Evening Telegraph of April 12, 1887, to have said, at the laying of the foundation stone of an Orange Hall at Barnamaghery, County Down—
  "That the time was rapidly approaching when the Irish Question would be transferred from the House of Commons to arbitrament in the field,"
  and that the Orangemen should have their forces properly constituted; whether he will call the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the words spoken by this magistrate at these public meetings; and, whether any Government reporter was present at either of these meetings?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am sorry to say that this is one of a series of Questions which have been put down
  538
  without sufficient Notice; and if the hon. Gentlemen who put them down will wait until a later day I will endeavour to obtain the necessary information. On this ground I cannot answer Questions 35, 37, 38, 41, 50, 52, 53, nor 54.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to say that I gave Notice of my Question on Tuesday; and I may add that this is not the first occasion on which I have called attention to this subject.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Question may have been put down on Tuesday; but it is impossible to say that on Thursday I can have got the information.
  MR. CLANCY: Perhaps I may be allowed to add——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. W. ABRAHAM: The second and third paragraphs of my Question (38) have not been answered.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It relates to those paragraphs that I am obliged to say that I have got no information.
  MR. CHANCE: I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order, whether it is in Order to answer a series of other Questions when a reply to one only was asked for?
  MR. SPEAKER: The Question is too trivial for me to answer.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—THE EVICTIONS ON THE VANDELEUR ESTATE, CO. CLARE.
  MR. JORDANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that, in the Vandeleur evictions on Wednesday last, 18th instant, possession of the house of Michael Cleary, of Carrowdoty, was obtained by means of a "battering ram," and that the whole back side wall, 30 to 40 feet in length, was battered down; whether he is also aware, that in gaining possession of Cleary's house, and Pat Spellassy's and James Madigan's, of Carnaculla, on the 19th instant, the Sheriff, Mr. Croker, and his Emergency bailiffs tore down their furniture, threw it into the yard, and broke it into pieces; whether he has been informed that the Sheriff was remonstrated with at Spellassy's without effect; whether he will state the statute or authority warranting such destruction of tenants' scant chattels; and, whether, if further

  539
  evictions occur, he will take steps to prevent such recurrence?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. T. BALFOUR): The Divisional Magistrate reports that access was obtained by a battering-ram because the tenants resisted with violence and threw boiling water, the house being strongly barricaded. The wall was battered down, as, owing to strong barricading and violent resistance, it had to be largely breached. All the houses were barricaded and prepared for resistance, and nearly all the furniture had been removed by the tenants. What was left was removed as carefully as possible by Captain Croker's men. The Divisional Magistrate does not know whether the Sheriff was remonstrated with; but he is aware that he always performs his difficult duties with great humanity and moderation.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in some cases, the agent and the bailiffs have actually destroyed houses after the people have been put out; and I also wish to ask if the Irish Government are of opinion that the armed forces of the Crown should be engaged in such operations?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware whether that is the case or not. I may remind the House also that the Question is not one arising out of the original Question.
  MR. JORDAN: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the fourth paragraph of my Question.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): Perhaps I may be allowed to say that, from the answers given to Questions of fact by my right hon. Friend, it appears to rue what was done was done legally. The chattels were carefully removed, and the landlord was entitled to be put in clear possession of the house.
  MR. JORDANasked, whether it was really a fact that the chattels were removed carefully. He saw thorn with his own eyes thrown out on the road, and he personally remonstrated with the Sheriff for breaking the man's furniture.
  MR. MADDENasked for Notice of the Question.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask, Sir, for an answer, and permit me to say that I have these specific charges on the Paper; and it is most important to my constituents that they should be answered fairly and honourably.
  MR. HUNTERasked, whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would answer the question of law on the supposition that the facts stated by his hon. Friend were correct?
  MR. MADDENsaid, that would be a most inconvenient precedent. The question of fact had been clearly and distinctly answered by his right hon. Friend that there was no destruction of property. He answered the question of law, that what occurred was perfectly legal. If further information was wanted with respect to a question of fact, he must ask the hon. Member to put a Question on the Paper.
  MR. W. REDMONDasked, whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would state that the chattels were carefully removed, inasmuch as his hon. Friend had distinctly stated that he had seen them thrown out on the road? Who gave the right hon. Gentleman his information?
  [No reply.]

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—THE EVICTIONS ON THE VANDELEUR ESTATE, CO. CLARE.
  MR. JORDANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention had been directed to the Resolution which appeared in The Irish Times and Freeman's Journal on Friday the 20th instant, signed by the Very Rev. M. Dinan, D.D., P.P., V.G., Kilrush, and 15 other priests, in whose parishes the Vandeleur property is situated, protesting against the insult alleged to be offered to them by their exclusion from the inner circle at the evictions on the Vandeleur Estate; whether he will state by what law, statute, or authority, these clergymen were so excluded; and, whether he will take steps, should there be any further evictions, to prevent a similar occurrence?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I under stand that a Resolution of the nature indicated has appeared in the news-

  541
  papers. The ground upon which the Divisional Magistrate felt it his duty to refuse to permit the local Roman Catholic clergy to pass inside the cordon formed by the troops was, as I have already stated in reply to another Question, the fact of their having been (as they also admitted) the authors of the Plan of Campaign upon the estate; and at the commencement of the evictions some of their body have been seen to enter the church and set the bell tolling to assemble the people, notwithstanding that a Proclamation had been issued forbidding an assembly as likely to lead to disturbance. The Divisional Magistrate, in so refusing, acted under the general powers conferred by statute upon magistrates to secure the peaceable carrying out of the law. I cannot undertake to interfere with the administration of the law in the manner suggested in the concluding portion of the Question.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if the clergy have solemnly and publicly denied that they had anything to do with the resistance offered; and, also, whether it was much more due to the presence of the clergy than to the armed forces of the Crown that the peace had been preserved among a population so dreadfully excited?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman asks me my opinion—whether my opinion agrees with his—I have to say that it does not.
  MR. JORDANasked, whether it was not a matter of public notoriety that the priests had done their utmost to bring about a satisfactory settlement and to keep the peace; and that this attitude of theirs had been endorsed by the Local Government Inspector and the brother-in-law of Mr. Vandeleur?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, his information was that the clergy had not denied having anything to do with the Plan of Campain.
  MR. SEXTON: They do deny it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, my information is that they do not deny it. And if that is a fact, there is ample reason, in my opinion, for the action taken by the Divisional Magistrate.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the priests have not done their
  542
  very best? Does the right hon. Gentleman not know——?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—THE EVICTIONS ON THE VANDELEUR ESTATE, CO. CLARE—MR. SHEEHY.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)(for Mr. SHEEHY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What was the nature of the incitement to resistance on which the authorities considered themselves justified in excluding the hon. Member for South Galway from the immediate scene of evictions on the Vandeleur property; what was the occasion of such incitement; and, if any such incitement has been made by the hon. Member, why has not the Government taken proceedings under the provisions of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): As reported in The Freeman's Journal the hon. Member made a speech at Kilrush on May 4 last, in which he said that—
  "Mr. Dillon and he had come down to take a look over the battlefield—the Vandeleur Estate—on which the landlords were going to face them in West Clare, and to see if the popular forces were in good order. He had no fear of what the result would be. The Government appeared to imagine that they could support the Union by the same means by which they carried the Union; that they could drive the people of Clare to desperation, and then that Colonel Turner could dragoon them. Let them stick by b the national organization and by the Plan of Campaign."
  On July 21 he is reported in The Times to have said that—
  "What he himself wanted the world to understand was that no man would go tamely out of his house; that no man would be so base or so cowardly as not to resist the forces that attempted to root him from his place."

  THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION —REMOVAL TO RICHMOND PARK.
  MR. KIMBERasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he will direct that the map of Richmond Park, now in the Tea Room, showing the site of the rifle ranges proposed by the National Rifle Association, may be exhibited on the hoarding in Westminster Hall, or other convenient place, for inspection by the public and

  543
  parties interested, together with a definite description of the proposed works and mode of dealing with the same, and the conditions which the Association offer to submit to as regards the use of the same, and as to the closing of the Park; whether he will give some limited time for the public and parties interested to show cause and state objections against the proposal before he reports to the Cabinet; whether, on reporting to the Cabinet, he will draw their attention to the question of whether there are or not, as alleged by H.R.H. the Commander-in-Chief, many other more appropriate places for the purpose; and, by what right the paddocks in Richmond Park are enclosed and the public excluded therefrom at all, and to what uses they are applied, and is there any reason why they should not be thrown into the Park proper, of which they form a part?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that Westminster Hall would be a convenient place for exhibiting the map of Richmond Park now in the Tea Room, where, I think, it may well remain. I shall, with pleasure, lay on the Table of the House a copy of the latest application of the National Rifle Association. As to the second paragraph of the Question, I have already made a Report to the Cabinet; but I shall at any time be glad to confer with my hon. Friend upon the subject, and to send forward any further views he may have to suggest. As to the third paragraph, the question it raises is not one with which I have officially any right to interfere; and as to the last paragraph, the paddocks have always been reserved for the purpose of growing hay and roots for the use of the deer, and a discretion to keep them so enclosed is left to me by the Parks Regulation Act, 1873. I do not think it would be desirable to make any change in that respect at present.

  THE LATE MR. MANDEVILLE—PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CORONER— DR. MACCABE.
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is the Dr. MacCabe at present attending the inquest at Mitchelsown the same who fills the office of
  544
  Medical Commissioner of the Local Government Board; and, if so, why was he sent to examine the political prisoners in Tullamore Gaol; whether he has had his attention directed to the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Prisons, Ireland, 1883–4, in which they advise an improved diet for prisoners, and state,—
  "It should always be borne in mind that the medical officer of a prison, when he sees fit, may alter or add to the diet of any prisoner whose health seems to require attention;"
  whether this recommendation was adopted; and, whether a Circular was issued by Dr. MacCabe, while a member of the Prisons Board, to the medical officers of Irish Prisons, requesting them to report in favour of the old scale of diet, which the Royal Commission had unanimously condemned?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Dr. MacCabe now fills the office of Medical Commissioner of the Local Government Board. When he visited Tullamore, he was medical member of the Prison Board. The recommendation of the Royal Commission has been adopted. I need hardly add that no such Circular as that alluded to was ever issued.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— BALLYCOTTON PIER—REPRESENTATION FROM THE GRAND JURY OF CORK.
  DR. TANNERasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether any communication has been received by the Irish Board of Works from the Grand Jury of the County of Cork, in reply to the communication sent by the Board of Works on the 20th instant to that Body; what was the reply; and, whether it is a fact that several gentlemen on the Grand Jury, who had personally examined the structure in question, expressed their unqualified condemnation thereof, and approved the judgment and professional ability of Mr. Kirby, M.A., C.E., the surveyor for the County of Cork?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): I have answered several Questions relating to this harbour and pier. There appears to be a conflict of opinion—[Dr. TANNER: Hear, hear!]—between certain members of the Grand Jury and the Board of Works of Ireland. I have no reason to doubt the

  545
  correctness of the information which has been supplied to me previously; but I have asked for a special Report.
  DR. TANNER: Is it not a fact that the Grand Jury of the county of Cork is exclusively composed of the most ultra Tories?
  MR. JACKSON: I have no information on that point.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—RESOLUTION OF THE ULSTER LAND COMMITTEE.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to are port published in The Belfast Morning News of the 23rd instant of a meeting of the Ulster Land Committee, held in Belfast on Friday last, under the presidency of Samuel Black, Esq., J.P., at which a resolution was adopted expressing alarm and apprehension in view of the prospect of the enormous number of evictions in Ireland, and appealing—
  "To Parliament to adopt measures calculated to arrest the injustice and suffering which are likely to ensue from such lamentable proceedings;"
  and, whether, considering that a large number of these evictions are in consequence of the non-payment of the old rents, which the landlords are endeavouring to exact from tenants who are entitled to the benefit of the fair rents, he will take steps to prevent evictions in respect of the non-payment of the old rents pending the fixing of the fair rents by the Land Commission?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have seen the article alluded to; but I have no ground for thinking that the anticipations expressed in the Question are likely to be realized.
  MR. M'CARTAN: Is it not a fact that a large number of Irish landlords are exacting the old rents, pending the fixing of fair rents?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No; I am not aware of that; but I should be very glad to take into consideration any case the hon. Gentleman places before me.

  HARBOURS (IRELAND)—DUES AT ARDGLASS, CO. DOWN.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the complaints made as to
  546
  the excessive charges for dues on vessels and cargoes at the harbour of Ardglass, County Down, Whether he has yet considered the matter, and if he can state what changes are proposed to be made?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): I have investigated the charges of the Ardglass Harbour, and I find they compare favourably with the charges in other deep water harbours on the East Coast, such as Arklow and Wicklow; hut they are far from meeting the annual charge of maintenance, still less for the making of any provision for paying off the debt on the harbour. In 1885–6 the receipts were £104, and the expenditure £761; in 1886–7 the receipts were £162, and the expenditure £816; in 1887–8 the receipts were £249, and the expenditure £848. These figures, although they show a progressive increase of receipts, do not justify me in recommending a reduction of the dues.
  MR. M'CARTAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware whether, in the case of the Ardglass Harbour, there are any charges which prevent an increase of the receipts?
  MR. JACKSON: No, Sir; I do not think the figures I have quoted justify that conclusion, because the receipts show a continuous increase. In the two years they have more than doubled.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—THE EVICTIONS ON THE VANDELEUR ESTATE, CO. CLARE—SERGEANT FLETCHER, ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)(for Mr. SHEEHY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Sergeant Fletcher, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, acted as bailiff guiding the evicting force on the Vandeleur Estate to the various homesteads; whether, in this work, he was driven on a police car and accompanied by two other members of the Force; whether his duty at these evictions was confined to the preservation of the peace; and, what rule of the Police Code permitted him to fulfil the duties of estate bailiff?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, that the Divisional Magistrate reported that neither Sergeant Fletcher

  547
  nor any other member of the Constabulary acted as bailiff. A protecting force was sent to a certain townland, and the local police guided the force there.
  MR. SEXTON: Are we to understand that it is the duty of the police to guide these eviction parties?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he should imagine that it was consistent with the duty of the police to do so.
  MR. SEXTON: When we come to the payment of the sergeant, the landlord will find that he will have to pay him.

  THE LATE MR. MANDEVTLLE—PROCEEDINS BEFORE THE CORONER— DR. BARR.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)(for Dr. KENNY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Dr. James Barr, at present attending the Mitchelstown inquest as a witness on behalf of the Irish Prisons Board, holds any office under the Home Office; if so, what is the office; is he the same medical man who visited the political prisoners in Tullamore Gaol last winter; if so, by whose direction did he visit them; did he make any Report of the result of his visit to the Irish Authorities; and, if he did, will the right hon. Gentleman produce his Report for the information of the House; did he visit other gaols in Ireland and make Reports thereon; and, if so, will those Reports also be produced; is he the same person who, representing himself as a medical man, recently visited Mr. John Dillon in Dundalk Gaol; if so, by whose direction did he make the visit and for what purpose, and what Report, if any, has he made of his visit; did he refuse to give his name to Mr. John Dillon when demanding that the hon. Member should submit himself to his examination; did Mr. Dillon refuse to submit to such examination unless furnished with some credentials by his visitor; and, was it by the instructions of the Government that Dr. Barr desired to keep his name and purposes secret?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Dr. Barr is medical officer of Kirkdale Prison, Liverpool. He visited prisoners convicted under the Crimes Act in Tulla-
  548
  more last year by direction of the Government. He did make a Report upon the subject. As at present advised, I do not propose to lay these Reports upon the Table. Such a course would be contrary to universal practice, and might form a very undesirable precedent. He visited, in addition to Tullamore, Limerick, Clonmel, Cork, Wexford, and Londonderry Prisons. By the order of the Government he recently visited Mr. John Dillon. I am not aware whether he refused his name. Mr. Dillon did decline to submit to examination.
  DR. TANNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why he did not send an Irish medical man on this mission, and not cast a suspicion and a slur on a body of honourable men?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman why he is unable to answer the portion of the Question which states that Dr. Barr refused to give his name to Mr. Dillon?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not got any information on the subject. If the hon. Gentleman thinks the matter important he can put a Question down.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)—SENTENCE OF WHIPPING.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Lord Advocate, If he has seen the statement in the Scotch papers that a boy, James O'Neill, sentenced to be whipped at Coatbridge, was sent to Glasgow to receive the whipping; and, whether this was a violation of the Regulations laid down by the Lord Advocate?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The Regulations state that the punishment is to be inflicted in such police office or cell or other suitable place, if possible, within or adjoining the Court House, as shall be fixed by the Sheriff; and the Sheriff is directed to see that such place is provided. But great difficulty arises from its being often impossible to find any person who will undertake the duty in the place where the trial takes place; while the Police Authorities dispute the right of the Lord Advocate to make a Regulation ordering police constables to act. The County Authorities also object to the right of any officer of

  549
  State to order the punishment to be carried out on their premises.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—AGRICULTURAL VOTERS—THE COUNTY COUNCIL.
  MR. FENWICKasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether agricultural labourers who are hired by the year and occupy houses on the farms on which they are employed, the occupation of such houses being part of their wages, will be entitled to vote for members of the County Council?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE), in reply, said, that under the conditions stated in the Question agricultural labourers would be entitled to a vote.
  MR. STANSFELDasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that Clerks of the Peace had been advising overseers to omit such occupiers from their lists?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he was not aware of the circumstances mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman; but he would inquire into them.
  MR. FENWICKasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that in the North of England a large number of agricultural labourers, who lived in houses as part of their hiring, had been refused in their requests to have their names put on the Register?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid he would inquire.

  COMMISSIONERS OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—SIR PATRICK J. KEENAN.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)(for Dr. KENNY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the P. J. Keenan, whose name appears as signing several recent Dublin Castle Proclamations, is the same person as the paid official of that name, the Resident Commissioner of National Education, Ireland; and, whether, in future, the Government will take steps to put a stop to the practice of requiring a paid official occupying such a position as that of National Education Commissioner from being identified with acts of the Executive Government?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): It is not
  550
  within my province to interfere with the discretion which Privy Councillors may use in the exercise of duties imposed upon the Privy Council by Act of Parliament. But I may inform the hon. Member that Sir Patrick Keenan has signed no Proclamation of the kind to which the hon. Member seems to refer.
  MR. SEXTON: As this Gentleman has been turned into a tool of Dublin Castle, I will move at the proper time to strike his salary out of the National Education Estimates.

  NAVY—THE EXPERIMENTAL NAVAL MANŒUVRES—CHARTS.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB&c.)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he is aware that the four charts furnished by the Admiralty to the Library, for the use of Members during the experimental Naval Manœuvres, are inconveniently small; that upon none of them are the limits within which the operations are to be confined shown; nor are the signal stations which are in telegraphic communication with the Admiralty in any way distinguished; whether he is aware that there is hanging up at Lloyd's a large clear chart upon which the limits of these operations are indicated, and that alongside this chart are exhibited, by reference, a copy of the official programme, the names of the vessels comprising each Division of the Fleet, and all telegrams as they arrive relating to the movements of the Squadrons and ships, while by means of distinguishing pins representing vessels the position of the Squadrons as last reported can be seen at a glance; and, whether, under these circumstances, he will reconsider his decision, and cause such arrangements to be made as will afford Members of this House equal advantages to those provided at Lloyd's for following these important and instructive experimental naval operations?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The charts furnished to elucidate the Naval Manœuvres are those in actual use by the officers conducting the manœuvres, and would, therefore, seem the most suitable for hon. Members to follow. Any charts which are published by the Admiralty, and which the hon. and gallant Member wishes to see, can

  551
  doubtless be shown to him on his signifying his wish to the Librarian of the House. As the scope of the operations extends over the whole of the coasts of the United Kingdom it is difficult to define any limits. I have not seen the chart at Lloyd's referred to; but I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that, although Lloyd's may record from hour to hour the movements of the ships from the sources at their disposal, this is not done from authoritative sources; and even if it were possible to do so, I do not consider such movements would be of value to hon. Members when the conditions are so constantly changing. I have no objection to having a Paper drawn up showing the composition of the different Squadrons, which may be attached to the charts.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND) —MULLINGAR WATER ACT, 1885—THE BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. PAULTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Local Government Board, Ireland, will take any steps to compel the Board of Guardians of the Mullingar Union to avail themselves of the power to take water from Lough Owel, given in the Mullingar Water Act of 1885; and, if the Guardians allow the compulsory powers given by that Act, and limited to three years from the passing of it to expire, does the whole Act drop?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Local Government Board have no power to compel the Board of Guardians of Mullingar Union to carry out the Lough Owel scheme provided for by the Mullingar Water Act of 1885. The powers of the Guardians for the compulsory purchase of land or waters for the purposes of the Act will expire on the 31st instant; and the period within which the works authorized by the Act may be executed will terminate on July 31, 1892.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—ARREST OF MR. JAMES O'KELLY, M.P.
  MR. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu-
  552
  tenant of Ireland, Whether the metting in Boyle, described in the warrant on which Mr. James O'Kelly, M.P., was arrested, was advertised for a considerable time previous to being held; whether any steps were taken to proclaim it; and, what time has elapsed since the alleged offence was committed?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The meeting referred to was held on Sunday, June 24. It was summoned by placards; but for what time previous to the date fixed I am unable to say. No steps were taken to proclaim it.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): With reference to the arrest of Mr. O'Kelly, may I ask whether the Irish Government had any reason to apprehend that he or any other Irish Member would endeavour to avoid arrest, or would fail to appear in Court to answer any charge against him; and whether they cannot convey to a Member that his presence is required on a certain day, instead of having detectives slouching about the House, and dogging the steps of Members on their way to and from the discharge of their Parliamentary duties?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no legal process by which, under the Act, a Member can be summoned in England to attend in Ireland. My hon. and learned Friend (the Solicitor General for Ireland) tells me that it must be done by way of warrant. With regard to the other Question of the hon. Member, whether I have any reason to suppose that any Irish Member of Parliament would desire to evade going before a Court of Law, I have to say that I have painful experience on that point, for two or three Gentlemen at least refused to obey summonses.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked why the warrant was held over, and why the proceedings were delayed for a month?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no reason to believe that the warrant was held over for any period of time. As to the Question why the hon. Member for Roscommon was not arrested immediately after the speech or meeting, the hon. Member must be aware that these things require consideration, and delay must occur.
  MR. CHANCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say by whom

  553
  was the prosecution directed—whether he himself directed the prosecution?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am entirely responsible for what has taken place.
  MR. T. C. HARRINGTONasked if it was not the case that English jurisdiction "runs" in Scotland and vice versâ?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN), after consultation with the Lord Advocate, said, he was not prepared to admit that such was the case; but he was absolutely certain such jurisdiction did not apply to a summons of an Irish Court of Summary Jurisdiction.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman say why a summons was not served on the hon. Member for Roscommon?
  MR. MADDEN: It would be impossible to obtain a summons for service in England, and the only process that could be obtained for execution in England was a warrant enforceable under the Statute.
  MR. SEXTON: Is there no other way of informing a Member engaged in attending to his Parliamentary duties that he is required to answer a complaint against him than that of arresting him and taking him as a prisoner to Ireland?
  MR. MADDEN: There are no other means known to the law of effecting the object.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYasked, if the sending of an Irish Court summons to a person resident in England would not be as effectual as if the party was in Ireland?
  MR. MADDEN: No; there is no statutory provision for serving it; no magistrate would be justified in issuing such a document, and it could not possibly be put in force.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I would like to ask whether midnight was selected for effecting the arrest of the hon. Member for Roscommon, because the authorities were afraid his arrest in the streets in the course of the day might have caused a tumult?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Sir John Swinburne.

  SOUTH AFRICA—ZULULAND—EMPLOYMENT OF ARMED NATIVES.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNEasked the First Lord of
  554
  the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government will employ any armed Natives of Africa in suppressing the unhappy disturbances which have arisen in Zululand?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE)(who replied) said: Basutos and friendly Zulus have already been employed, and the General in command has full discretion to employ them in the suppression of these disturbances. It is desirable, as far as possible, to relieve the white troops from the danger to health inseparable from the climate in Zululand.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNEasked, whether horrible atrocities did not take place in the Transvaal, including the brutal murder of women and children, through the employment of Native levies?
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, there was no use in going back to that time. The General in command would now be responsible for the conduct of the levies.

  PUBLIC BILLS—THE ROYAL ASSENT— ATTENDANCE ON COMMISSIONS.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he would endeavour to make arrangements whereby the Speaker should attend the Commission for giving the Royal Assent to Bills at a time more convenient to the Lower House?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am in communication with the authorities of the other House, with the view of seeing whether arrangements cannot be made for the Royal Assent being signified at an earlier stage of the proceedings of this House.

  THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION— REMOVAL TO RICHMOND PARK.
  MR. KIMBERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Cabinet will, before arriving at any conclusion on the First Commissioner reporting to them on the subject of Richmond Park, take into consideration the larger question whether, having regard to the growing national importance of the Volunteer Army, one or more Central or Provincial Camps of Instruction and Competition should be provided for them in touch with the Regular

  555
  Forces, and on a basis commensurate with their value to the country?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The question as to g allowing to the Volunteers the use of Richmond Park is still under the consideration of the Government, and the more general question of camps of instruction will also receive attention.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked, whether the proposed occupation of Richmond Park by the Volunteers would be brought under the notice of the House?
  MR. W. SMITHsaid, there would be a discussion in "another place" on the subject to-morrow, and he should prefer postponing any answer to the Question until the result of that debate was known.

  THE AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT— LEGISLATION.
  SIR EDWARD BIRKBECKasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is now in a position to state definitely when the Bill for creating the Agricultural Department will be introduced, and in which House of Parliament?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I hope to be able to lay the Bill on the Table in the course of next week. I think it would be convenient to do so in this House; and I trust I may be permitted to do it without any prolonged discussion, as I believe that the House on both sides desires to have information with regard to the scheme of the Government in the course of the present sittings.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Perhaps I may be allowed to take this opportunity of referring to a question which was addressed to me by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) with regard to the course of Business. A few days ago I entertained the hope, which I believe the House generally entertained, that it might have been possible to abstain from asking the House to adjourn to the autumn. But, Sir, I am obliged to come to the conclusion that
  556
  the state of Business will not permit us to entertain that hope any longer, and we must ask the assistance of the House, at an adjourned Sitting in the autumn, to dispose of Votes in Supply, which, I am afraid, must remain undisposed of in the course of the present Sittings of the House. I have endeavoured, as far as I can, to ascertain the views of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, and I have come to the conclusion that it would be exceedingly inconvenient to them, and not an advantage to the Public Service, that we should ask the House to continue its Sittings through the month of August, and probably far into September, in order to dispose of the remaining Business which must be disposed of before the House can be prorogued. Although I do deeply regret the necessity we are under of postponing the consideration of Supply to so late a period of the year—and I hope it will be the last time in the history of Parliament in which it will be necessary to do it—still, I think the peculiar circumstances of the present case warrant the course which I am now about to recommend to the House. I have stated that it appears to me to be absolutely essential that the Bills which have passed through Grand Committees should be disposed of before the House adjourns; and in making that statement I believe I have the unanimous support of Members on both sides of the House. The work of the Standing Committees has been of a most satisfactory character, and it would be a great misfortune if any difficulty or delay occurred in giving full effect to it. In these circumstances, we shall ask the House to proceed with the Bills which have passed through the Grand Committees before the adjournment. We shall ask the House to dispose of the Local Government Bill before the adjournment. I trust I may be permitted to express the hope that that Bill may be disposed of in the course of to-morrow's Sitting, and in order to facilitate that result I shall propose to move the suspension of the 12 o'clock Rule, although I hope it may be possible to conclude the consideration of the Bill, and to read it a third time before 12 o'clock to-morrow night. The House will see that if there is to be an early adjournment, it is absolutely necessary that that Bill should go soon to

  557
  "another place," so that we may receive it back again to consider any Amendments that may be made there. I propose to proceed with the consideration of the Members of Parliament Commission Bill in Committee on Monday night, and if it is not disposed of on Monday, to take it again on Tuesday. I hope that the two Sittings may be more than sufficient to dispose of that stage of the Bill. There remains the Standing Committee Bills—the Employers' Liability Bill, the County Court Consolidation Bill, and the Mortmain Bill; and I should hope that they may be disposed of at one Sitting. We shall have to ask for Votes on Account of the Civil Service and the Army and Navy Estimates. There will remain for second reading during the Sitting the Universities (Scotland) Bill, and there are two or three other measures which have passed through Committee or through Standing Committees with regard to which I hope to make arrangements satisfactory to Members from Scotland, so that they may have a day for them. There are also measures relating to Imperial Defence, Excise Duties, and the collection of tithes, which I must ask the House to consider before the adjournment. We must also set apart a day for the consideration of the Indian Budget. There is also one other measure which is involved in the Local Government Bill, and to which consideration must be given—that is the Bill allocating the portion of the Probate Duty which is appropriated in aid of local finance; and it is only right that the House should be made fully acquainted with the proposals of the Government, more especially with regard to Scotland and Ireland, before the adjournment. I trust that, with the assistance of the House, we may be enabled to arrive at a comparatively early adjournment, so that we may obtain the rest which we shall require previous to the Autumn Session, to which it is my duty, with very great regret, to invite the House. There is one omission I have made, and that is with regard to my engagement with the hon. Member for Shields (Mr. J. C. Stevenson). I trust before the adjournment I may be enabled to arrange that one of the other measures of which I have spoken may be taken at a Morning Sitting, and that the Evening Sitting
  558
  may be appropriated to the Bill of the hon. Member on the subject of Sunday Closing.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked what the intention of the right hon. Gentleman was with reference to the Oaths Bill, which stood for third reading?
  MR. W. H. SMITHhoped that the hon. Member would have the opportunity which he desired to move the third reading of this Bill. In his statement he had not, of course, mentioned every measure of the second class which might or must be passed. For example, he had not mentioned the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, the Public Works Loans Bill, or the Metropolitan Board of Works Money Bill. These measures, which involved no great principle, and were usually passed without opposition, would have to be taken.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that, under the New Rules, it would be impossible to raise a discussion on the Indian Budget on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair. He regretted this because hitherto the Motion had afforded the chief opportunity which the House had enjoyed of drawing attention to Indian grievances. He wished to know whether this effect of the New Rules was intended by the Government, or whether it was accidental; and, in the latter case, whether the Government could meet the difficulty?
  MR. BUCHANANasked if they were to understand that it was the intention of the Government to take the second reading of the Universities (Scotland) Bill before the adjournment, and then postpone the Committee stage till the autumn; and also whether a Bill would be introduced during the present Session dealing with the allocation of the Probate Duty in Scotland? He pointed out that, according to the scheme of Business laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, the second reading of the Universities (Scotland) Bill would be put off till the last days of the present Session. He also wished to know when the Autumn Sitting would begin?
  MR. BROADHURSTwished to know when the Employers Liability Bill would be taken, and whether, when it was taken, it would be set down as to the first Order? He hoped it would not be fixed for a Wednesday.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he would remind the First Lord of the Treasury that there were two Tithes Bills before the House. He did not suppose the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take what he might call the principal measure, as he probably would be aware that it was a very much disputed Bill, and would not fail to occupy a considerable amount of time.
  MR. CAUSTONasked, whether there was any precedent for a Finance Minister pressing forward, at so late a period of the Session, so important a question as the proposal to tax vans and wheels?
  MR. HUNTERasked, whether, taking into consideration the extreme length of the legislative programme which the First Lord of the Treasury had indicated, that probably the Session would be carried on to the end of August; and, looking also to the fact that the Universities (Scotland) Bill must be the subject of very prolonged discussion and opposition, he would consider the propriety of postponing the Universities (Scotland) Bill until the Autumn Session?
  MR. DILLWYNwished to know when the National Defences Bill would be taken; and if a day could not now be named, whether ample Notice would be given of the intention of the Government to bring it forward.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, that the Board of Works Money Bill ought rightly to have been in the hands of Members on June 1. When would it be introduced?
  MR. CRAIG SELLARasked what the right hon. Gentleman intended to do with the Merchant Shipping Bill, which had not yet come before the Grand Committee? It would give rise to a good deal of discussion, and he wanted to know whether it was to be proceeded with?
  MR. LEAsaid, the First Lord of the Treasury had said nothing about the three Irish Drainage Bills, and he wished to know if it was the intention of the Government to pass these Bills, and when the Select Committee would sit to which it was intended to refer the Bill? Also, would Committees be expected to sit generally in the Autumn Session? He wished to know now whether it was the intention of the Government to put a clause in the Ex-
  560
  piring Laws Continuance Bill continuing the powers of the Land Commission in Ireland; and whether it would be passed before the powers of the Land Commission expired?
  MR. WALLACE, in support of the views of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter), asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would not postpone the consideration of the Universities (Scotland) Bill, in view of the prolonged discussion to which it would give rise, till the Autumn Sitting, or give a Saturday Sitting for its consideration?
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, as the Trustee Bill had already passed the Grand Committee, he hoped it would be passed. With regard to Scottish Business, he hoped a day would be named for the consideration or allocation of the Probate Duty, as an important discussion might take place.
  MR. W. P. SINCLAIR&c.)asked whether the Scotch Burgh and Police Bill would be proceeded with, and whether the right hon. Gentleman would not reconsider his decision with reference to the Sunday Closing Bill, and appoint a day for its discussion in the autumn instead of now? The reason for his request was that many Members had paired for the Session without reference to this Bill, and that it would be difficult to secure a full and fair discussion if the debate were taken before the Adjournment.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONEsaid, he was desirous of pressing the claims of one Bill, if it was to be made the subject of legislation during the present Sitting of the House—the Wheel Tax Bill. He knew how reluctantly the Government yielded to the postponement of the Votes in Supply; but while the general opinion was that Supply should, if possible, be taken at an early period, and with a full attendance of Members, he was sure it would be felt that there was one class of subject with respect to which those considerations applied with still greater force—namely, Bills dealing with taxation. He thought it would be a matter entirely without precedent—in his recollection at least—if the consideration of a measure such as the Wheel Tax Bill were postponed to the dregs of the Session, at a time when there would be a very limited number of Members in attendance. He trusted, therefore, that

  561
  in the course of next week a vote would be come to on the subject of the Wheel Tax.
  DR. CLARKasked whether it was intended to proceed both with the Burgh Police and Health (Scotland) Bill and the Bail Bill?
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked when the Vote on Account would be taken?
  MR. W. H. SMITH, replying first to the hon. Baronet, said, that he could not pledge himself to dates at that moment. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) expressed a very strong desire that the University (Scotland) Bill should not be proceeded with this Session. He had endeavoured as far as he could to gather the opinions of the Members for Scotland, and he found that the preponderance of opinion was strongly in favour of the Bill being read a second time, if possible, during the course of the present Sitting. He proposed, therefore, to arrange for a day for Scotch Business, and the Universities Bill would be put down; and if hon. Members would make that day do also for the Burgh Police and Health Bill and the Bail Bill, it would be agreeable to the views of a large number of Gentlemen from that portion of the Kingdom. [An hon. MEMBER: What date?] He had already said it was impossible to indicate a day precisely. He would arrange at the earliest possible moment, or as soon as they had made progress in other Business. He might mention that they were now at the 26th July, and having regard to the course of Public Business during the last year he did not think an early day in August would be a late day for the disposal of this question. With regard to the National Defence Bill, it would not be taken that evening; but he hoped that, as the House had gone into Committee on that Bill, there would not be much delay in passing it. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth) asked as to the Board of Works Bill. The Government were not under any obligation to produce it on the 1st of June. It included the whole of the financial provisions for works to be executed in London during the course of the coming year for which powers had been obtained, and none of the works could be executed unless this particular Bill passed this Session. Then, the House would remember that the
  562
  powers of the Board of Works passed from them under the Local Government Bill, so that, unless this particular Bill passed, the new County Councils would not have any financial power to carry out the necessary works for the Metropolis. The Merchant Shipping Bill was not one of the measures which the Government considered it necessary to proceed with during the present Sittings. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lea) had asked a Question with regard to the Drainage Bills. They were not in that category which would require the Government to press them upon the consideration of the House if hon. Members representing Irish constituencies objected. The Government left those Bills entirely in the hands of those hon. Members, and if they objected the Government would not press them. [Mr. SEXTON: Let us debate them.] With regard to the Committees in the Autumn Session, he should hope there would not be many Committees sitting during the course of that Session; but there was one Committee which he thought they should have to ask the House to appoint, and that was a Committee to inquire into the question of emigration. The Government had prepared proposals with regard to emigration affecting certain districts in Scotland, and they thought the House should be in possession of fuller information than it had at present with regard to the plan, and the scheme, and the proposed operation of the system of emigration which had been adopted. They would probably, therefore, in the very early days of the Autumn Session, ask the Home to appoint a Committee on that subject. The Expiring Laws Continuance Bill would contain a clause continuing the Land Commission in Ireland, and it would be passed before the existing powers of the Commission expired. He was asked as to the Official Trustee Bill. That was not a Government measure, and he could not hold out any hopes that the Government would ask the House to sit longer than would otherwise be necessary in order to pass it. As to the Sunday Closing Bill, he considered he was under an obligation to the hon. Member for South Shields to find him an opportunity in the course of the present Sitting for its discussion; but if equally agreeable to him that the consideration of the question be post-

  563
  poned until the Autumn Session, he should not be unwilling to meet his wishes. The Burgh Police and Health (Scotland) Bill, he hoped, was one which would be accepted by Scottish Members without much further consideration. It had been, he believed, most exhaustively dealt with by a Select Committee, and it came among the class of measures which, having been so carefully examined, it would be a misfortune if it were not to be passed in the present Session.
  MR. BROADHURST: The Employers' Liability Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he was not able to say when he would put the Employers' Liability Bill on the Paper; but not under any circumstances could he undertake that it should be the first Order of the Day, because it was intended to take the County Courts Bill on the same day, and as that was not expected to occupy any very considerable time it would be taken first and the Employers' Liability Bill afterwards.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The Tithes Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: With regard to the Tithes Bill, he would give information as to the particular Bill they would ask the House to deal with to-morrow. It was certainly the intention of the Government to deal with the Wheel Tax—the Excise Duties Bill, as they preferred to call it—in these Sittings, and they would put it down in the course of next week. He mentioned this with some reserve, because it might be necessary to take a Vote on Account next week, and therefore the time of the House might be taken up with that; but he hoped that on Thursday next they might be able to take it. As to the New Rule, it was not intended that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) should be shut out from his opportunity of raising the Motion in the manner indicated. He would consider whether any method could be adopted without disturbing the Rules of the House.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he had not referred to the Official Trustee Bill, but to the General Trustee Bill, which contained a most important provision as to extending the power of investment by trustees. An undertaking had been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be proceeded with,
  564
  and he (Mr. Anderson) earnestly hoped it would be allowed to go on.
  MR. MUNDELLApointed out that the right hon. Gentleman had not told the House when it was proposed they should adjourn, or when they should re-assemble in the autumn.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he had indicated—he hoped with as much consideration as he could for the feelings and the necessities of the case—to hon. Gentlemen the measures which it appeared to him it was absolutely necessary the House should take before it adjourned. He thought they might get through the work he had indicated by the end of the second week in August. He hoped they might be able to do so. That would be the 11th of August; but hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who had experience of Business in the House would not think he was doing his duty by the House or Public Business if he gave an undertaking that the House would rise on a particular day when there was Public Business which must be got through before the adjournment took place. With regard to the meeting in the autumn, he hoped it would not be necessary for the House to come together before the first week in November.
  MR. ESSLEMONTsaid, that the First Lord of the Treasury was evidently under a misapprehension with regard to the Scotch Bills. He had consulted with several Scotch Members, and he believed that while they were not very desirous that the Universities (Scotland) Bill should be taken until the Autumn Session there was a very general feeling that the Burgh Police and Health Bill should be taken at the earliest opportunity.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTSasked whether the programme submitted by the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the present Sitting would be subject to any revision?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that, as far as he could see, it would be the duty of the House to sit until the whole of the programme he had given was got through.
  MR. J. C. STEVENSONsaid, he was quite willing to accept a suitable day in the Autumn Session for the discussion of the Sunday Closing Bill.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORDasked if the Navy Estimates would be discussed on the Vote on Account?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that, of course, it would be open to the Committee to have such a discussion on the Vote on Account; but he would appeal to his noble Friend to say whether he wanted the same discussion twice over? Every one of the Votes would come on for discussion at the Autumn Sitting?
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had not understood that there was to be a Vote on Account for the Army and Navy, but only for the Civil Service Estimates.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he would wish to consult the convenience of hon. Members on that point. No Vote on Account of the Army and Navy would be taken if it were not desired; it was a most unusual course, and only adopted, he believed, when a Dissolution took place. He might at once say that if there was a disposition to debate the Vote on Account, then he would prefer to take a separate Vote, because it would be obviously inconvenient that there should be two debates on the same question.
  MR. PROVAND&c.): Is it proposed to continue Lord Ashbourne's Act?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, a Bill to continue the Act would be proceeded with during the present Sitting.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYANasked whether, considering a Vote on Account for the Army and Navy was to be taken for the purpose of enabling hon. Members to have a reasonable holiday before the Autumn Session, the right hon. Gentleman would not reconsider his programme so as to give a reasonable prospect of its being discharged before the autumn was over; whether he had considered that the business would be better done when hon. Members came back refreshed by a reasonable holiday, and that it was not in any sense a dereliction or abandonment of public duty to postpone Bills which could be passed equally well in the first week of November as in the third or—he was afraid it might be—the fourth week in August? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would in the course of the next day or two ascertain the sentiments of hon. Members and put
  566
  a considerable amount of his programme into the later Sitting.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he had already taken the usual steps to arrive at that information and to meet the views conveyed to him, not only from Friends behind, but from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. He had gone as far as he could to meet their wishes, and he trusted the arrangement would be accepted by the House, and that the House would give them assistance in carrying it into effect.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked his right hon. Friend whether he intended to depart from the principle which had been so steadily laid down for many years, that the Votes for the Army and Navy should be taken each Vote separately, and that no Vote on Account should be taken for either the Army or Navy?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I thought I had given information to the House and to my hon. and gallant Friend with regard to this question. If the House prefers that the Votes for the Army and Navy that will carry us on to the month of November should be taken subsequently, I am willing to put them down. But I understood that there was a desire on the part of hon. Members on both sides to discuss on the Votes in Committee of Supply the questions raised in the Committees on the Army and Navy Estimates, and I thought I was justified in departing from precedent in order to give hon. Members the opportunity they desire. If, however, that desire does not exist in any considerable degree on both sides, I shall be only too glad to take substantive Votes that will carry us on to November. I think, on the whole, it will be best to meet the wishes of the House, even if in opposition to the policy of the Government, rather than to force a particular course, even if justified by precedent.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: As the right hon. Gentleman has referred to the state of opinion on this side of the House with regard to Votes on Account and substantive Votes in Committee, I wish to state, as my own opinion, that I should certainly very much lean to the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will, if possible, adhere to the established practice and take whatever he requires as substantive Votes.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Very well.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.— [BILL 338.]
  (Mr. Ritchie, Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Long.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.— [BILL 338.]

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE), in moving to insert, after Clause 22, the following Clause:—

    "(1) The sums paid in pursuance of this Act to the local taxation account, in respect of the proceeds of the probate duties (in this Act referred to as the 'probate duty grant') shall, until Parliament otherwise determine, be distributed among the several counties in England in proportion to the share which the Local Government Board certify to have been received by each county during the financial year ending the 31st day of March next before the passing of this Act out of the grants heretofore made out of the Exchequer in aid of local rates, which will cease to be granted after the passing of this Act, and the share to be so certified shall be estimated in such manner as the Local Government Board direct.

    (2) The proportion to be paid to each county shall from time to time be paid under the direction of the Local Government Board to the county council out of the local taxation account. The Board may, if they think proper, vary their certificate, but unless it is so varied, their certificate shall be conclusive,"

    said, that the Government had undertaken to reconsider the whole question of the mode of distributing the Probate Grant. The contention had been that the distribution on the basis of indoor pauperism would act unfairly with reference to particular counties, and especially with reference to Wales. It was also said that it might be the means of Guardians using pressure to get people into the workhouse, so that the County and the Union might get a larger proportion of the grant. The Government felt the force of some of the objections urged against their proposal, and now intended to adopt a method by which the question of pauperism, indoor or outdoor, would be left out of the question, and should not be at all the measure of the amount to be received either by the County or by the Union, with the exception of the Metropolis. They had carefully considered all the various modes by which the money should be
    568
    distributed, and had come to the conclusion that, on the whole, the best method was that the money should be distributed to the counties in the same proportion as the grants in aid from the Exchequer which were at present given, but which were to be discontinued. The advantage of that method was that it did not touch the question of indoor pauperism, and that it was to some extent a measure of the needs of the localities, because the amount hitherto so contributed out of the Imperial Exchequer had been a certain proportion of the money spent for various purposes by the localities. Entailing as the Bill did upon the County Councils the obligation of paying to the localities within their areas similar contributions, it was provided that the County Councils should have certain money distributed to them in proportion to the payments which they would have to make. The amount of grants in aid discontinued was about £2,600,000. The amount of the Probate Duty which would be allocated to the Local Authorities was about £1,800,000. The result, therefore, would be that wherever the county had been in the habit of receiving from the Imperial Exchequer £2,600, it would, under the proposal of the Government, now receive £1,800, while it would have to pay to its areas the £2,600. On the whole, the result would, he believed, be found to be satisfactory, with the exception of the Metropolis. It so happened that under no system whatever which could be adopted, other than the system which they originally proposed, would the Metropolis gain so much. Therefore, as the Government had been driven from their proposals as to indoor pauperism, it was inevitable that the Metropolis must suffer; while under the system now proposed it would suffer less than if the grant were based upon population or rateable value. Putting aside the Metropolis for the moment, it could not be gainsaid that a good many of the anomalies which must exist under any system were lessened by the proposal that the Government now made. With reference to the distribution as between counties and local areas, he proposed to get away from indoor pauperism and to adopt a system by which certain establishment charges would be paid by the County Fund, just as those in the Metropolis were now paid out of the Metro-

    569
    politan Common Poor Fund. Singularly enough, the amount so paid happened to be almost equal to the original amount they contemplated of 4d. for an indoor pauper. Under the new proposal, no question would arise as to there being any inducement to Boards of Guardians unduly to press applicants for relief into the workhouse. In conclusion, he would express the hope that the present proposals of the Government would be generally acceptable to the House.
    Clause (Distribution of probate duty grant,)—(Mr. Ritchie,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. RATHBONEsaid, he wished to move at once that this clause should be postponed.
    MR. SPEAKER, interposing, said, the hon. Member could not make such a Motion, as they were not in Committee now.
    MR. RATHBONEsaid, that in that case he wished to state his entire disapproval of the clause. He wished, first, distinctly to state that in the unfavourable comments which he felt compelled to make upon the present proposal of the Government, he desired to exclude emphatically the President of the Local Government Board. The right hon. Gentleman had shown repeatedly that he had the courage of his convictions, and he was sure that if the right hon. Gentleman had been properly backed up they would have had a very different Bill, and a very different finance from that finance which, he ventured to think, the more it was considered the less it would redound to the credit of the Government. What had been and what was the proposal of the Government? They were evidently conscious that in proposing the transfer of these very large sums from Imperial to local taxation they must be careful so to guard it, lest, as in former cases, while increasing the burden of the Imperial taxpayer, they gave no permanent relief to the local ratepayer, owing to the greater laxity of expenditure which it encouraged; and they sought, and he thought most wisely sought, to guard against the greatest danger of lax expenditure in outdoor relief. It was useless to tell the House, as the right hon. Gentleman the Chan-
    570
    cellor of the Exchequer did, that this plan was proposed without any view of promoting good administration, but solely as a means of distributing fairly the grants in aid of the local taxation. He knew, as was stated in a recent pamphlet of Sir Charles Dilke's, that every Government which had proposed to reform Local Government proposed to adopt this plan as a means of promoting sound administration, and the President of the Local Government Board, having the courage of his convictions, boldly defended it on that ground. It was difficult to reconcile, as he (Mr. Rathbone) should like to reconcile, confidence at once in the financial ability and in the perfect frankness and candour of the deliverances on this question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As a mere mode of distributing the grant, the plan first proposed was full of perfectly indefensible anomalies. Its only valid defence was as in favour of good administration. By the course now proposed, the Government had left their supporters absolutely without the means of defence. Had they persisted in even a modification of their plan on the ground of sound finance, as they might easily have done, they would have found many people in this country who would have admired their courage and done justice to their endeavours to protect at once the character and material prosperity of their countrymen. Now, they would be as much exposed as before to have political capital made out of their proposal, with the additional and just accusation that they had let "I dare not 'wait upon' I would," like the poor cat in the adage. They might easily have rectified much more effectually the inequalities of their original proposal by dividing one-half the proposed grant by population. But just contrast the two proposals. Their original proposal was to give the subsidy somewhat in proportion to careful expenditure; their present proposal was to give it in proportion to amount of expenditure; those who had spent most, and therefore claimed most under the grants, were in future to receive most. This Bill gave an enormous sum to the Local Bodies, distributed as a premium, as it were, on previous local expenditure and an encouragement to rash and careless expenditure in the future. Call that a great measure! No doubt, the Bill

    571
    was a skeleton which might be clothed afterwards in flesh and blood and made a great measure by a firm and courageous Government. But what could they expect from a Government who showed themselves weak and improvident in their financial proposals, and who, on the one hand, gave these large grants without applying any precautions, and, on the other hand, gave to the ratepayers no additional powers or opportunities of watching or controlling the expenditure which was laid upon them?—for certainly their proposals as to Local Councils neither consolidated, simplified, nor made it possible for the ratepayers to interest themselves intelligently in the actions of those who were governing and taxing them. The Bill, as proposed, was not, financially or otherwise, a Bill for the reform of Local Government. It was a vast political playbill drawn to pass and not to work, presuming on the ignorance and credulity of the British ratepayers; an attempt to buy the constituencies by large grants and dish the Radicals, as Mr. Disraeli tried to dish the Whigs, by outbidding them in democratic proposals. He ventured to think it would prove an equal failure. They were now only dealing with finance; but, practically, finance was at the bottom of Local Government, and to a certain extent a test of its importance, and when he alleged that this Bill was not a Local Government Bill, but only a fringe of one, he had only to point out to the House that it was the Local Authorities, or, as called in the Bill, District Authorities—exclusive of the Metropolis—that had the expenditure and administration of 13–15ths of the sum raised by rates in this country. It was evident, therefore, that the County Council would control but a small fraction of the expenditure, and exercise a small part of the administrative duties connected with Local Government; and that, therefore, when they formed the County Councils and had given them their funds and their duties, they would have only dealt with a very small fraction of Local Government, and have left all that on which our health, our education, the maintenance of our poor, and the care of our population, would so greatly depend. Therefore, that was the main part of Local Government; but it was just the part which this powerful Government, with so much to give and
    572
    such a majority at their back, had not dared to touch, but abandoned at once, the moment they found the smallest risk of incurring any unpopularity, however small. A Chancellor of the Exchequer prepared to give £3,000,000 in relief of the ratepayers, and, in accordance with the principles he had himself taught them, to relieve them of one-half of the rates, in justice to the poor and in protection of property, might have brought forward a Bill carrying out in the boldest manner his own idea of sound legislation, and no one knew better than he did what was a sound local reform—and might have defended and carried it through the House with the support of honest men on every side of it. But if, when the Local Councils Bill came before the House next year, they found an equal want of courage and adherence to principle, the reputation the right hon. Gentleman once had had for courage and firm adherence to sound principles in finance and administration would have been utterly wrecked. He (Mr. Rathbone) had made those remarks with great pain and under great disappointment. He should only be too glad if, when the real Local Government Bill appeared next Session—if it did so appear—it would be found the right hon. Gentleman had taken courage to carry out those sound principles of rating and administration which, 20 years ago, they learnt from his teaching, but which they could not so easily discard, as it had been a bitter disappointment to find that he was prepared to do.
    MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he rose for the purpose of moving the rejection of the clause, and he should go to a Division unless the right hon. Gentleman made some concession in the direction he proposed. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had thrown over the question of outdoor relief as a basis for the distribution of the grant. The point of view from which he regarded the grant was that of the Metropolis. The basis on which the right hon. Gentleman first proposed to give the grant was not of great advantage to the Metropolis; but, in consideration of other advantages, they were willing to waive their objections. The present scheme was, however, so unfavourable to the Metropolis that he desired to lay before the House the relative positions of London

    573
    and the country on this matter. How would the County of London be affected by the proposed financial change as compared with the rest of England and Wales? The country, exclusive of the Metropolis, was going to receive from various allowances the sum of £2,559,000 per annum, in addition to £1,372,000 per annum, which was its share of the Probate Duty, making a total of £3,931,000. On the one hand, it used to receive in aid of the local rates a sum which was a little short of £2,000,000 a year. Consequently, the country would now receive an additional sum of £1,931,000 in aid of the local rates, which was equivalent to a rate of 4d. in the pound. On the other hand, the Metropolis, which used to receive £624,000, would now receive £855,000—that is, an additional sum of £231,000—which was equivalent to a rate of 1¾d. This would inflict a great injustice upon the Metropolis, which had to suffer from an influx of pauperism from the whole Kingdom. He should divide the House upon this clause unless the Government would accept his proposition that before the different shares of the Probate Duty were allocated throughout the country the sum of £250,000 a-year should be first appropriated in aid of the local rates of the County of London, or some other equivalent proposition. He made this calculation altogether irrespective of the Van and Wheel Tax; but that tax could not, in any event, rectify the matter. He was astonished that the right hon. Gentleman, who was aware of the needs of London, should have brought forward a proposal so disadvantageous to the Metropolis, and particularly that such a proposal should have emanated from the other side of the House, where London was represented by five-sixths of its Members.
    MR. ELTONsaid, no doubt, the first proposal of the Government was honest and straightforward, but subsequent discussion had disclosed the fact that it was a proposal of a most inconvenient nature, and likely to be attended with injustice to the aged and deserving poor. When that was pointed out to the Government they bad to consider whether they ought, with somewhat pedantic accuracy, to hold to their opinions, or whether they should depart from them. It was with
    574
    great pain that some hon. Members heard the original proposal put forward. No amount of friendship for the Bill would have enabled them to get over that defect; but the Government had shown great courage in altering their opinion on the point.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, whilst he admitted that the proposal of the Government met certain of the objections made to the Bill as originally introduced, yet he thought it was not altogether satisfactory, and that it would introduce further inconsistencies and inequalities which ought to be called attention to, and which he hoped the Government would meet. He was glad to think that the test of indoor pauperism had been abandoned; it was an unwise principle to introduce in distributing the grants. The financial effect of the present proposal would tell somewhat hard in appearance on London. The original proposal was, in his opinion, most favourable to London. [Mr. JAMES STUART: No, no!] The right hon. Gentleman said that it was the only way which could be devised by which London would get as much as it was entitled to. It was the only basis and principle which would have given London so much in proportion to other districts. The present proposal would reduce the amount to be given to London by £108,000 a-year, and if that sum were distributed amongst the poorer counties of England it would be satisfactory to that side of the House. It was considered that Wales and the Western counties of England were unfairly dealt with in the original proposal. But the effect of the present proposal was not to benefit so much the poorer districts as to give more to some of the wealthier districts. The present proposal would increase the grant to Middlesex from £22,000 a-year to £48,000. That seemed to him to be an unjustifiable increase. In the case of the West Riding of Yorkshire, leaving out the county boroughs, the increase would be £25,000 a-year, or 50 per cent in excess of the original proposal. In Wales, on the other hand, the increase was a very small one. Wales, under the original proposal, would get £50,000 a-year. If the distribution were made according to rateable property it would get £74,000; and if according to popu-

    575
    lation, about £94,000 a-year. The present proposal would give it an addition of £14,000 a-year, or a total of £64,000. He did not think that this was a satisfactory solution of the difficulty. Then it was found that considerable inequalities were introduced as between one place and another. Birmingham, under the present proposal, would lose £8,000 a-year as compared with the original proposal; Lancashire would lose £12,000 a-year, and Warwickshire £7,000 a-year. These inequalities seemed to show that the present basis of the proposal could not be entirely maintained. He therefore urged the Government to reconsider the question, and whether it would not be better to adopt the principle of rateable value or population? He believed the principle of population would be the better and sounder basis to adopt; but he admitted the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman would labour under as regarded London, and therefore he suggested whether it would not be better to adopt rateable value as the basis instead of the present proposal?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, the House would observe that while the Government were charged from one quarter with unduly favouring the Metropolis, they were told from another that they had not favoured London sufficiently. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was that London would get too much by the present proposal.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I did not say that. I said that, on the whole, the proper basis would be population; but that that would bear somewhat hardly upon London.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, that if they took the population basis London would receive hardly any benefit from the re-adjustment of local taxation. This would be treating the Metropolis with injustice. The fact was, his right hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), who had suggested that London was getting too much, urged a re-arrangement by which London would get nothing at all. Then the hon. Member for the Hoxton Division of Shoreditch (Mr. James Stuart) thought that the Government were treating London shabbily. Now, London under the present re-arrangement would, no doubt, get a less rate per pound
    576
    than the remaining portion of the country. This arose from the fact that London in the past received a very much larger share in the way of contributions than any other part of the country. The consequence was that, these contributions being withdrawn, any system would be comparatively unfavourable to London. He ventured to put it to the House that, whatever basis they took, it would always be possible for hon. Members from different parts of the country to point out that their constituencies would suffer by its adoption. He thought it must be frankly admitted that the present change which the Government proposed had met, to a great extent, the objections which were brought against the previous proposal. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had pointed out that Wales, for instance, would gain under the new proposal. He also said that Middlesex would gain 120 per cent. But why? Because under the previous proposal Middlesex gained absolutely nothing, and the county was worse off than before. While other parts of the country would have gained, Middlesex would have lost ½d. in the pound compared with her position before. They now dealt with Middlesex in a fairer way; but still the rate per pound gained by that county would not be anything like that gained by other parts of the country. Did Middlesex get more than it was fairly entitled to in comparison with the rest of the country by the re-arrangement? It did not. Then, again, Staffordshire and Warwickshire under the previous proposal would each have gained 5d., and now each got 4½d. They lost under this particular proposal as compared with the other, but they were still above the average. In this matter individual cases must not be looked at, for it was impossible to frame any scheme which would be satisfactory to all. The Government had done their utmost to meet the House of Commons. They had retreated from the proposals which they previously put before the House, and he hoped that the House would not go into every individual instance in which some hardship might be shown. The Government had endeavoured to strike a fair line between the various classes of objectors. This point was extremely important—namely, that by the present proposal the poorer Unions of London

    577
    would gain very much more than the richer Unions. London under these arrangements would not lose, but it would gain less. As he had said, no system could be entirely satisfactory, and it was highly possible that it might be necessary to revise this matter in the future. He hoped that the House would not continue too long to discuss the differences in individual cases which the Government acknowledged, but which could not be remedied by the adoption of any system.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he sympathized entirely with the difficulties under which the Government, and especially his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, laboured in this matter; and he could not associate himself with the blame which his hon. Friend the Member for the Hoxton Division of Shoreditch (Mr. James Stuart) had endeavoured to attach to them. He thought that the Government had made an honest effort to meet the wishes which were expressed in a previous debate and to make a fair distribution. But he might say that the moment some of them began to get the delicious morsel which the previous arrangement gave them between their teeth, the Government snatched it away from them. He would endeavour to follow the lesson given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to argue the question from an entirely impartial and disinterested standpoint. He would not refer, therefore, to the case of Birmingham, except to say that it was peculiarly martyred by the new arrangements. Under the scheme originally proposed Birmingham would have received £34,000, but the Government had now cut them down to the miserable stipend of £26,000. Under the original proposal of the Government London was to receive £536,000 and now only £458,000, so that London naturally complained; and now the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) proposed that London should receive, on the basis of population, £360,000, or, on that of rateable value, £260,000, so that London would not be grateful for the advocacy of his right hon. Friend. The original proposal, which would have given the largest sum, would have been the best, because it would give to London and large towns
    578
    according to their needs, while the new proposal would give according to their extravagance. The need was greatest in large centres of population crowded with the influx of people generally in poor circumstances. He objected altogether to the new arrangement. As a rule it would give the largest grant to the richest counties that would be best able to dispense with subsidies. The proposal was based on the assumption that the present proportion was a fair one; but that had not been discussed at all, because they were satisfied that the Government at first made a proposal that was fair all round. If the proposal now made were fair to-day, it would not continue to be so, and the question arose how was the necessary revision to be made from time to time? He wished the virtue of the House had been sufficient to justify hon. Members in pressing the Government to adhere to their original proposal. The arguments which had been used would have justified the continuance of the old Poor Law and of a system which was rapidly ruining many country districts and some boroughs before the new Poor Law was passed. The Government had made their second proposal not because it was the best, but because pressure had been put upon them. It would obviate the evident injustice of the new proposal if account were to be taken, not merely of indoor pauperism, but of outdoor pauperism as well.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he would not object to this solution, but, as one who was strongly opposed to the grant being made on the basis of indoor pauperism, felt bound to support the Government in their alternative proposal. He believed if this money had been given in regard to indoor pauperism alone the arrangement would have been extremely unpopular in the country. If it were possible to have made the distribution on the joint basis of outdoor and indoor relief he should be satisfied, but he supposed the Government had some reason for not adopting that proposal. We did not desire to return to the state of things in olden days. He did not believe that in the rural districts outdoor pauperism had been largely abused. He did not say there were not districts in which it had been, but he was not acquainted with them; and, in those he was ac-

    579
    quainted with, outdoor relief had not been given to able-bodied people nor in aid of wages, hut it had been given to widows and to men who were bed ridden and incapable of work, and it was right it should continue to be given to them. He would be no party to returning to the original proposal of the Government; he would rather take their new proposal. It was true that it gave to those who had, because if they had been extravagant they would get more; but the general effect of the distribution was to give to the counties more than they had before.
    MR. LAWSONsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Central Division of Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) was not to be accepted as an exponent of the views of the Members for the Metropolis. London Members had great reason to complain of the invertebrate conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board; he had thanked them for their assistance in passing the London Clauses, and this was their reward. By this scheme nearly every other county would lose, and the Metropolitan ratepayers would have to pay the piper. The burdens of London ratepayers were exceptionally heavy, as the returns of local taxation for the relief of the poor showed, and they ought not to be called upon to make sacrifices for Wales or other parts of the country. It would be a test of the moral fibre of the Conservative Members for the Metropolis whether they dare oppose the Government on this point.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he regretted that the question was being debated as one between London and the country. There was a good deal of confusion about London gaining or losing; but there was no gaining or losing. It had received exceptionally large grants; the License Duties it would receive would not be equivalent to them; and there would be a deficit in this respect, whereas in other places there would be an excess. The Government had departed from the principle which they at first laid down—namely, that of measuring by pauperism the amount of relief to be given to localities. In his opinion that proposal would meet with general acceptance. The Opposition side of the House had never objected
    580
    to that proposal; their objections were entirely based on the fact that only the cost of indoor relief was taken into account. The best course for the Government to adopt would be to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, and distribute the grant from the Probate Duty according the cost of both indoor and outdoor relief in the different counties.
    MR. W. F. LAWRENCEsaid, it seemed to him the great advantage of the present proposal was that it put pauperism altogether out of their thoughts. He was one of those who entirely sympathized with the views of the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain). He had himself in some measure endeavoured to carry out the principle of strict administration of the Poor Law, which, he thought, was absolutely essential to the good of the people. Therefore, when the original proposal of the Government first came before that House, he ventured to say that it would have the effect of hampering the movements of those Poor Law reformers who had sought to administer the Poor Law strictly and faithfully. He was glad to see that the Government had brought in the scheme now before the House, which, although it might contain many anomalies, enabled these reformers to go on their way administering Poor Law relief on a sound and sensible basis.
    MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMSsaid, that when a number of Members from a particular district of the country found that the method of distribution proposed was going to do an injustice to their district, they were bound to meet together and consult, and submit their case to the House, and that was what the Welsh Members had ventured to do. They found that under the first proposal of the Government, which the Welsh Members resisted most strenuously, with, he was grateful to say, the assistance of several influential Members of the House, Wales and Monmouthshire would get £63,000 a-year. According to this second proposal they would get the increased sum of £79,000, but when they came to consider the proportion they would get under another method of distribution, they found that the sum would be considerably more. Indoor pauperism had been discussed and rejected; but supposing they rejected

    581
    both indoor and outdoor pauperism, and apportioned the grant on the amount of money spent throughout the country in counties on the relief of the poor, what would they find then? He believed, if the Government adopted that plan, they would do away with many of the injustices which would be inflicted by the system now under consideration. He had only had time to work out the figures in respect of Wales and Monmouthshire, and he found that the sum they would receive under the method of distribution he proposed would be increased from £79,000 to £107,000. He would have liked to have urged that method on the Committee, but he had not had time to work out the figures for England. Since then an hon. Member had worked out the figures with regard to the whole of the Kingdom, and from what he had seen of those figures he was persuaded that with reference to every county in England, and even London itself, this method would be a more just and equitable one than that proposed by the Government, or than any other method he had seen suggested. He thought the Government would do well, before they hastily adopted the plan they were now proposing, to consider whether it would not be better to ask the sanction of the House to submit the whole question of the distribution of the money to the Commissioners who would be appointed for the various functions under the Act. If they were not to have something better than the scheme submitted by the Government this evening, he would much prefer that the Commissioners should consider the whole matter, and report upon it to the House, and that a scheme should then be decided upon.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, the Government always anticipated that, having £1,800,000 to dispose of, there would be a considerable amount of wrangling—he did not use the word in an offensive sense—as to how the plunder was to be distributed. They believed that their original proposed was the soundest all round that could be made. But however sound the principle might be, it would undoubtedly have done injustice in some parts of the country which had adopted a different mode of indoor relief. The Government saw that the working of that principle, however sound, would lead to some injustice, and they endeavoured to find another
    582
    system, and he believed the system they now proposed would work more fairly. Hon. Gentlemen bad said that it was a premium upon extravagance. The Government did not regard it as being so. With reference to all the expenditure, the Government had a certain amount of control. Taking the question of the officers of the Union, the Local Government Board had a certain amount of control with reference to the appointment of officers and their salaries. Moreover, one great argument in favour of this proposal was that the County Councils would have to pay these grants in aid again to the various districts. It might be that at some time the whole system would have to be reconsidered; but if the Government had embraced a scheme of local taxation reform in this Bill, the difficulties of passing it would have been enormously increased. As to the extravagance argument, the suggestion to distribute the grant on indoor and outdoor pauperism was indeed a premium on extravagance, and would be giving effect to a principle which every Poor Law reformer had set his face against. There was nothing be could conceive that would be more likely to prove an engine of extravagance than this recognition of outdoor pauperism in the distribution of the grant. He would give the House one instance. In Wales the cost of maintenance per head of population for indoor relief was 8d., precisely the same as the Northern District of England. But the cost of outdoor relief in Wales was 3s. 5d. per head, while in the Northern District of England it was 1s. 8d. According to the population, the expenditure was clearly greater in outdoor relief in one district than in another. He did not say that that was conclusive; but it showed that the administration was bad either in the Northern District of England or in Wales. It was said that London would suffer under the proposed system. That was caused by the large amount of grants in aid, which would cease. It might well be that a very considerable proportion was caused by the Imperial nature of the duties of the police of London. He thought it was a very fair subject for consideration as to whether, before going carefully into the expenditure and the cost of the London police, some conclusion might not be

    583
    arrived at in the course of a year by which the grievance might be remedied. He would point out that the poorer parts of London would gain. Having gone away from the principle of indoor pauperism, the House could not expect any other which was likely to be more satisfactory than the one now proposed.
    MR. J. ROWLANDSsaid, he felt bound to oppose the clause.
    MR. BAUMANNsaid, he regretted that he could not support the Government on this occasion, but must vote for the Amendment.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 251; Noes 87: Majority 164.—(Div. List, No. 234.)
    Amendment proposed to the Clause, in line 4, after "England," insert "and Wales."—(Mr. T. E. Ellis.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he was willing to accept the Amendment.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he must protest against the acceptance of the Amendment, as favouring a fancied demarcation which would be turned to use by Home Rule politicians. If it were the case that the word "England" in an Act of Parliament covered Wales, he did not see why it should be treated as separate.
    MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, it was quite true that an Act of Parliament for England included Wales without special mention. It was that which was galling to them. It was, he maintained, better to make some sacrifice to sentiment in this matter.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he accepted the Amendment, because the title of the Bill mentioned Wales.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. T. E. ELLISsaid, he begged to move an Amendment the object of which was to vary the new clause already carried, so that the distribution of the probate grant should be made to the counties in proportion to population. The best test and measure of the needs of any part of the country was the amount of population. According to the present alloca-
    584
    tion proposed by the Government of the whole grant made to the counties from the Imperial Exchequer, Wales and Monmouth would only receive about £230,000. If the grant was distributed according to population, Wales and Monmouth, whose population was about one-sixteenth of that of England and Wales, would receive about £296,000. She would thus lose about £66,000 annually of the Probate Duty grant alone. Wales and Monmouth would, according to the present proposal of the Government, receive £79,400, whereas according to the test of population she would receive £108,500. These figures, he thought, were sufficient to justify his interposition. He wished the Government would accept his Amendment or that of the hon. Member for Glamorgan, and thus do a simple act of justice to the Principality.
    Amendment proposed to the Clause, in line 5, to leave out from the words, "to the," to the end of the paragraph, in order to insert the word "population."—(Mr. T. E. Ellis.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, the Government could not agree to the Amendment. Under it Wales would gain to the extent of 3d. in the pound, and London would gain one halfpenny, and the gain of Wales as compared with the rest of the country would be 5d. as against 3½d. in the pound.
    MR. STUART RENDELsaid, he should support the Amendment.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 155; Noes 89: Majority 66.—(Div. List, No. 235.)
    Amendment proposed to the Clause,
    In line 11, after the word "direct," to insert "In the case of the six counties of South Wales and the Isle of Wight there shall be added to the amount actually received out of such grants as aforesaid such additional sum as the Local Government Board certify to be the amount which each of the said counties and the Isle of Wight would have received if the roads maintained by the county roads boards had been main roads."—(Mr. Arthur Williams.)
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he was rather unwilling to accept an Amendment not on the Paper, but he gathered from the

    585
    language of the Amendment that what it did was this. Tolls were now being abolished in the Isle of Wight and in South Wales, and if these had been abolished before, a certain grant would have been made from the Exchequer in aid of those roads. The tolls were now to be abolished, and the hon. Member proposed that, in considering the amount of the grant to the South Wales counties, consideration should be had to what would have been the grant under ordinary circumstances for the maintenance of these roads. On the whole, he would advise the House to accept the Amendment.
    MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had correctly described the object of the Amendment.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, that it would be necessary to insert the words "or Highway Commissioners," after "County Board," in the Amendment.
    Amendment made to the said proposed Amendment, by inserting after the words "roads boards," the words "or the highway commissioners."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    Words, as amended, inserted in the Clause.
    Amendment proposed to the Clause, after the last Amendment, to insert the words—
    "Provided, that before such distribution shall be made in the proportion as aforesaid, there shall be a sum of two hundred and fifty thousand pounds paid over from the proceeds of the probate duties to the county of London, and such sum shall be dealt with by the county of London as part of the probate duty grant."—(Mr. James Stuart.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, he trusted that the hon. Gentleman would not think it necessary to press his Amendment to a Division. He entreated the hon. Member, as a Metropolitan Member, not to raise in such an acute form the financial relations of the Metropolis and the rest of the country. It had often been urged that the Imperial expenditure on London should be reconsidered, and his right hon. Friend had undertaken that, so far as the police were concerned, and generally, the matter would be reviewed. There was no desire on the part of the
    586
    Government to be unjust to London; but it was felt that it was a dangerous question to raise a feeling in all other parts of the country that the Metropolis would wish to secure too large a share.
    MR. LAWSON, in supporting the Amendment, said, the extra cost of the Metropolitan Police justified the request of the hon. Member for the Hoxton Division of Shoreditch.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Clause, as amended, added.
    Clause (Grant by county council towards costs of officers of union,)—(Mr. Ritchie,)—brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.
    Clause (Grant by London council to poor law unions,)—(Mr. Ritchie,)—brought up, and read the first and second time; amended, and added.
    MR. HOBHOUSE MR. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.) moved a clause giving power to County Councils to promote and oppose Bills in Parliament, being, he explained, a similar power to that which every municipal borough and Local Board has under the Borough Funds Act.
    Clause (County council to have power to promote and oppose Bills in Parliament,)—(Mr. Hobhouse,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, he regretted that the Government felt themselves unable to accept the proposed clause. Surely they ought to allow some time for these County Councils to get formed, in the first instance, before they placed such powers at their disposal. Those powers, he believed, must in due course follow to such powerful and influential Bodies as the County Councils would be; but it was not necessary to give them at the very start. The Government, however, would meet the hon. and learned Member to a certain extent by accepting a clause in the name of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. Llewellyn), giving the Council power to oppose but not to promote Bills, if the hon. and learned Member would withdraw his Amendment.
    MR. HOBHOUSEexpressed his willingness to withdraw.
    MR. J. ELLISsaid, he was sorry that the Government did not see their way to give this power at once. They would never get good County Councils unless the House granted them the power proposed to be given by the clause.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, he regretted that the Government were not prepared to accept the clause. It was absolutely necessary that the now county Bodies should have the power to promote Bills. The time would come when an amending Bill would be introduced in order that this power which was now refused by the Government should be given, and he saw no reason why it should not be granted at once.
    VISCOUNT WOLMERsaid, he wished to point out that several subjects had been left over to be dealt with next year, and he was extremely disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman did not see his way to deal with the question now.
    SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTHsaid, he was glad to know that the Government were prepared to give the County Councils the necessary power to oppose Bills. The effect of the clause was that the County Councils could only promote a Bill once in three years. The greatest possible precautions were taken against the County Councils going into any form of extravagance in the way of promoting Bills in Parliament. This was a carefully guarded clause, and admirably drafted. The more they limited the duties of the County Councils, the more they prevented good men from offering themselves. He thought they were shutting out County Councils unnecessarily from a useful and desirable power. The clause was a very ingenious way of meeting the difficulties which were made when this matter was discussed in Committee. He should support the clause of his hon. and learned Friend, and he hoped the Government might yet see their way to accept it.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had explained the reason why the Government did not think it wise to accept the new clause. The whole question of the power to propose Bills
    588
    was one which must come up before long for consideration, and he thought it undesirable to accept the clause now before the House. The restrictions imposed by the clause were of such a very severe character that they rendered it comparatively useless.
    MR. WOODALLsaid, that recognizing the fact that the Government were deeply pledged to deal with the whole question of the powers of Local Authorities, he would recommend that the clause should not be pressed to a Division.
    MR. FIRTHsaid, he thought it was open to argument whether, as matters stood, County Councils would not possess the powers the clause proposed to give them.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, that as the Government had made a valuable concession, that the County Councils should have power to oppose them, he would indorse the suggestion that the clause should be withdrawn.
    Motion, and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. WOODALLrose to move a new clause to save from the operation of the Bill rights and privileges enjoyed under charters, local Acts of Parliament, and orders confirmed by Act of Parliament.
    Clause (Saving for Charters, Local Acts, &c.,)—(Mr. Woodall,)—brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.
    MAJOR DICKSON, in moving the insertion of a new clause, providing that certain districts named in the schedule, for the purposes of this Act, form a separate county by the name of the county of the Cinque Ports, said, he had received an intimation that it was the intention of the Government to oppose this clause. He had placed it on the Paper at the request of 10 Corporations and three Local Boards. It had the approval of the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports and of the Justices of the County of Kent, who had petitioned in its favour. He was at a loss to understand on what grounds Her Majesty's Government could oppose this proposal when looked at in the light of the proposals already agreed to. The Cinque Ports had from time immemorial been recognized by the Sove-

    589
    reign and by Parliament as counties, and they had Charters, liberties, and privileges given them because they were counties. It seemed unwise and unjust, therefore, to deprive them of a privilege which they had so long enjoyed. These poets were situated not far apart, and they had everything possible in common among themselves, and absolutely nothing in common with the agricultural and rural population around them. The ancient traditions and history of the Cinque Ports ought to command the sympathy of the House, and he, as a humble Representative of one of them, asked that they should be allowed to enjoy the privileges which they had possessed for centuries, when it could be done without violating the principles of the Bill.
    Clause (Application of Act to Cinque Ports,)—(Major Dickson,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    SIR EDWARD WATKINsaid, that as a Representative of one of those ancient ports which had the privilege of self government or Home Rule in consideration of duties imposed upon them in defending the Channel and the coast, he begged to support the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Dover (Major Dickson). That hon. and gallant Gentleman represented in this matter the unanimous opinion of a number of towns with a population of 100,000, and a united assessment of £700,000. These towns wanted to be allowed confederation, not only in their own interest, but in the interest of the country. They had a sea boundary connecting them together in a way in which no other towns in this country were connected, and they were not only unanimously but most earnestly in favour of the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member. The House would be surprised at the unexpected resistance of the Local Government Board, and of the right hon. Gentleman who had refused to agree to any compromise. A deputation, headed by the Lord Warden (Earl Granville), had gone to the Local Government Board, but up to that moment he believed there had been no distinct answer in writing from the right hon. Gentleman to the representations made to him.
    590
    Canterbury, with a population of 20,000 or 22,000, had been erected into a separate county, because it was said to be surrounded by ancient traditions, and to have been a county of a town; but here were places with a total population of 100,000 and with ancient traditions, and exemption from county jurisdiction also.
    MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he desired to support the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Dover. They were not asking the House to carve out any new district. The district was formed already, and had its own customs, rights, and organization, dating from time immemorial. He might mention that a committee of the magistrates of Kent had unanimously petitioned in favour of the proposal now made.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he could not ask the House to accept the clause. The Cinque Ports were scattered over a wide area, and included municipal boroughs, local government districts, and parts of parishes separated from one another by many miles of country. To accede to the proposal, in those circumstances, would be to effect a disintegration instead of a consolidation of local government. It had been said that Canterbury had been set up as a county, and that was pointed to as a precedent. But the Government had not set up Canterbury as a county of a city; they had only preserved it as such. From time immemorial Canterbury had been a county of a city. Eight or nine other counties of cities with smaller popultaions had not been allowed to retain their position. The Cinque Ports had undoubtedly enjoyed a separate individuality for many centuries, and this they would, to a great extent, retain. The powers of the Lord Warden and of the Justices of the Ports would not be interfered with, and other ancient rights would be preserved. The argument that the Cinque Ports should be welded together for rating purposes and purposes of local government was not worth much, for they had never as yet been connected together for those objects.
    MR. BROOKFIELDsaid, the places included in the scheme together formed a continuous coast line from Seaford in Sussex to Birchington in the county of Kent. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Go-

    591
    vernment Board, in answer to representations made to him at different times in regard to many of the localities, had expressed himself as disinclined to rudely disturb any sentimental tradition. He thought it would be acknowledged that the sentimental claims of these places were very strong indeed, especially when consideration was had to the privileges that they enjoyed. He did not think that the sentimental claims, however, were by any means the strongest that could be used. He very much questioned whether the hon. Member for Hythe would be suspected of having merely sentimental views before him. He thought the hon. Gentleman might be taken as one who held profoundly practicable and commercial views on the question, and it was in that light that he (Mr. Brookfield) ventured to approach the subject himself. The representations that had been made to him on the subject were mainly from the Cinque Ports, and were all in favour of the change. No representations had reached him from the inland rural districts in the contrary sense, and he thought the strongest reason that could be adduced, and one which he hoped had been urged in the course of the discussion, was the fact that they had the nucleus of a new locality ready to hand. That measure was one which brought into existence new local areas, new men, and new systems, all of them untried; but in the Cinque Ports they had ready to hand this ancient Corporation or collection of places, with, to a certain extent, a government already in working order. The reason for which these changes were chiefly demanded were prosaic and financial ones. It might be urged that the inland rural communities might object to the Cinque Ports deriving the advantages of the newly assessed places, but as far as his own district was concerned that was not the case, as the two ancient towns of Rye and Winchilsea were not very prosperous places, and were more likely to be a burden upon the newly-constituted County Councils from a ratepayer's point of view than to be of any financial benefit to them. He thought there was an argument—perhaps a somewhat fanciful one—which would have been mentioned. It was this, that in the case of war the Cinque Ports would undoubtedly occupy exactly the same position with regard to
    592
    the aggressors as they did many hundred years ago. The result would be that in the case of hostilities being threatened they would probably have the privilege of making a very large local expenditure in addition to the Imperial aid which might be offered to them, an ancient privilege which he did not think the inland rural communities would desire to share. He was afraid that the President of the Local Government Board had been rather discouraging in the reply he had given, but they had never seen him on important occasions of this kind change his mind, and if there should be lingering in his mind at that moment any doubt as to making the concession after all, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would give the benefit of the doubt to those in whose favour it had been asked.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 181: Majority 131.—(Div. List, No. 236.)
    Clause,—
    (Council to have power to oppose Bills in Parliament.)
    "The county council of an administrative county shall have the same powers of opposing Bills in Parliament, and of prosecuting or defending any legal proceedings necessary for the promotion or protection of the interests of the inhabitants of the county, as are conferred on the council of a municipal borough by the Act of the thirty-fifth and thirty-sixth years of Victoria, chapter ninety-one; and subject as hereinafter provided the provisions of that Act shall extend to a county council as if such council were included in the expression 'governing body,' and the administrative county were the district in the said Act mentioned.
    Provided that—

    (a.) No consent of owners and ratepayers shall be required for any proceedings under this section;

    (b.) This section shall not empower a county council to promote any Bill in Parliament, or to incur or charge any expense in relation thereto.")—(Mr. Llewellyn,)

    —brought up, and read the first and second time.
    Amendment proposed to the Clause, in line 1, after the words "an administrative county," to insert the words "other than London."—(Mr. Baumann.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause added.
    Amendments made.
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGE MR. SYDNEY GEDGE (Stockport) moved an Amendment, the object of which, he said, was to deal with the office of Alderman or selected Councillor. He said, that the avowed object of giving to the elected Councillors the selection of others, was the introduction into the Council of men of position and authority who would not undergo a popular contest. But this object was defeated by the course adopted in the Bill of giving to the selected men higher dignity and longer tenure of office. Of course, if 30 men had to select 10 Aldermen, whose term of office was to be twice as long as their own, they would not go outside for them, but would select some of their own body. Experience had shown that Aldermen were almost always selected from inside the Common Council. Thus, the good men were not brought in from outside. A man was selected whose seat was safe for another man of the same political colour, and that constituency was doubly represented, and it was put to the expense of a second election. He, therefore, proposed that the selected Councillors should have no distinguishing title and no precedence, and that their tenure of office should be the same as that of the Common Councillor. But in order to secure continuity of policy, he proposed that all alike should serve for four years, but that one-half should go out of office in every alternate year.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 27, to leave out sub-section (c.), and insert—

    "(c.)—(1.) The term of office of a councillor shall be four years;

    (2.) On the ordinary day of election of councillors in every alternate year one-half of the whole number of councillors for the county or for the electoral division, as the case may be, shall go out of office, and their places shall be filled by election;

    (3.) In the first year in which any councillors shall go out of office, the half to go out shall be determined by ballot, and afterwards the half to go out shall be the councillors who have been longest in office without re-election;

    (d.) In this Act the councillors elected by the council are called co-opted councillors, and the other councillors are called county councillors;

    (e.)—(1.) On the ordinary day of election of co-opted councillors in every alternate year, one-half of the co-opted councillors shall go out of office, and their places shall be filled by election by the council;
    594

    (2.) In the first year in which any co-opted councillors shall to go out of office, the half to go out shall be determined by ballot, and afterwards the half to go out shall be those who have been longest in office without re-election;

    (3.) A co-opted councillor shall not vot in the election of a co-opted councillor."—(Mr. Sydney Gage.)

    Question, "That the word 'The' stand part of the Bill."
    MR. RITCHIE, in opposing the Amendment, said, that the Government, having determined to admit the Alder-manic element, felt bound to adhere to their original proposal—namely, that the County Councillors should be elected for a term of three years, and should then retire together. There were many objections to the proposal per se of his hon. Friend, the principal of which was that it would necessitate the grouping of districts. He could not, therefore, advise the House to accept the Amendment.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERhoped that, as the House had decided to admit the Aldermanic principle, the Government would adhere to their original proposal.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Other Amendments made.
    MR. HOBHOUSE, in moving the insertion of a sub-section, providing that at the triennial election of Aldermen, if any six County Councillors joined in voting for one duly-qualified person, he should thereupon be declared elected a County Alderman; but each County Councillor should only vote for one County Alderman; and the vacancies remaining (if any) should be filled up in the ordinary way by such of the County Councillors as had not already voted, said the principle of the Amendment was simply that a bare majority of the Council should not elect all the Aldermen.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 30, after the word "alderman," to insert the words—"At the triennial election of aldermen, if any six county councillors join in voting for one duly qualified person, he shall thereupon be declared elected a county alderman, but each county councillor shall only vote for one county alderman; and the vacancies remaining (if any) shall be filled up in the ordinary way by such of the county councillors as have not already voted as aforesaid."—(Mr. Hob house.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he hoped the House would not consider he was riding a hobby in supporting the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Hobhouse). It was, in his opinion, a proposal of great moderation. It was also an excellent proposal, and one which he thought would recommend itself to the House. By the adoption of this plan they would get rid of party spirit in the election of Aldermen. One result of the application would be to break up the Councils into smaller parties, and so avoid the sharp antagonism which arose from two conflicting factions. The machinery was somewhat novel, but, in reality, very simple. Suppose there were a Council of 48, elected by the whole constituency, who had to choose eight Aldermen. The 48 would be divided into groups of six, and each six would elect an Alderman. The sixes in this way could easily combine to select the eight best men for Aldermen. There would be no difficulty, in case two sixes selected the same man, in annulling one of the elections and allowing one of the sixes to choose a fresh man. The proposal was a very modest one, dealing as it did with the question of Aldermen alone. It was practicable and simple, and would effectually protect the interests of minorities of all parties. They had had in Committee a great deal of discussion as to the value of Aldermen in Councils. Many hon. Members objected to the introduction of Aldermen into the County Councils at all; but he believed that the proposed Amendment, if adopted, would take away the particular evil which he had attached to Aldermen in some boroughs, and would secure that, for the future, the Aldermen who would be elected to serve on the County Councils would be exempt from the taint of finding their places owing to party intrigue. He recommended strongly to the attention of the House the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Somerset, with whose view in regard to this matter he strongly sympathized. They must do something to prevent the evil creeping into the County Boards which had crept into some of the Borough Councils. The great and encouraging cause of the evil
    596
    in the boroughs had been the extreme power which had been given under the system of election to the dominant party to maintain its majority, not only during the current year, but for a series of years to come. He wanted to secure the benefit of the presence of Aldermen in the County Councils, and to get rid of the mischief which existed in the ease of some towns; and if the House adopted the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Somerset, they would, he thought, secure the benefit and get rid of the mischief. They would secure the virtue of continuity which they would all agree should in some way or another be secured, and they would be able to retain for service in the County Councils men who, through age or growing infirmities, were unwilling to face the difficulties of a contested election, but whose fellow-members would most gladly see amongst them as persons who had deservedly won their positions and who had served the public well for many years. He trusted the House would allow the Amendment to be introduced, as he was sure its presence would be beneficial, and would not in any way interfere with any one of the provisions of the Bill.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he thought the scheme was infinitely too small to have any influence on Party feeling. The Council itself would be popularly elected, and he was sure the Government would not be prepared to assent to so enormous an innovation upon the present system of election. It might be that an experiment of this kind might be tried at some time or other, but this splitting up of a Council into groups would probably he productive of mischievous and even dangerous results.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he had a great deal of sympathy with the object of the hon. Member (Mr. Courtney) in his wish that there should be as little Party spirit as possible in the new Councils, and he was also anxious that the danger should be avoided of a small majority permanently dominating a Council. The Government had already taken a step to prevent the occurrence of that evil, by prohibiting retiring Aldermen from voting in the election of their succesors. There were, however, strong practical objections to the proposals apart from any question of principle. In the first

    597
    place, in order to make the scheme at all workable, it would be necessary that the different groups should come to some agreement as to the men to be elected. In that way the spirit of the caucus would be introduced. If there were no such agreement, the most constant attendants, who out of a Council of 60 would probably be about 40, would be able to manage the elections for their own purposes. It seemed to him that there were other methods more simple and less open to objection. He was satisfied that under the system now proposed, circumstances might arise in which a minority and a majority of Councillors would have to elect an equal number of Aldermen. He could not accept the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend.
    MR. HANDEL COSSHAMsaid, he had a strong impression that the more the selection of the Aldermen was discussed, the more it would tend to the elimination of this feature from the towns, rather than to its perpetuation in counties. To illustrate how ridiculously the system worked, he would mention what had occurred in Bristol in 1825. When the Municipal Corporations Act was passed, the election of Aldermen in Bristol depended absolutely upon one vote. That one vote elected 13 Aldermen, and gave a certain preponderance to one political Party. That existed for half a century, and created the greatest dissatisfaction in the town. He did not hesitate to say that hundreds of thousands of pounds were wasted in consequence of the election of Aldermen in that manner. They were brought in distinctly on Party lines, and they had no connection with or experience in municipal affairs. In some way a change, he was sure, would have to be made in connection with the appoinment of Aldermen, or the principle of the Bill would be upset altogether.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board and other hon. Members who objected to this proposal seemed to think that the elections of County Councillors were to be a sort of Utopia, in which the ordinary motives that swayed men's minds would disappear. For his own part he did not believe it, and he thought it well that on this subject they should clear their mind of cant. He was
    598
    of opinion that the county contests for the County Councils would be fought upon some distinct local or general political issue. Whether it was the Temperance Question, the question of expenditure, or the question of administration, men would arrange themselves more or less into parties. He was not a proportional-representation man. He believed that, whatever the result of the first election, there would be placed in the hands of the majority a power of perpetuating and enlarging that majority, it might be, as in the case of Bristol, for 50 years. He admitted that the Government had made a great concession in agreeing that Aldermen should not vote for Aldermen. The true principle was that in proportion to the majority which the body of electors had sent to the Council should be the number of Aldermen. The theory of the Bill was that for every three Councillors there should be one Alderman. In Staffordshire, for example, there would be 66 Councillors and 22 Aldermen. Only half the Aldermen would be elected at the triennial election, and the true principle was that at each triennial election six Councillors should have the power of electing one Alderman. It was for the House to determine whether the proposal now before it was the best method of dealing with this question. He objected to give a narrow Party majority the power to convert their majority of one or two into a substantial majority which might give them the supremacy in the County Council for years to come. He should vote for the Amendment.
    VISCOUNT WOLMERsaid, he trusted that no attempt would be made to eliminate Party feeling in these elections, because otherwise it would be impossible to got the agricultural labourer to take an interest in them.
    MR. KENRICKconfessed that he was a little surprised at the alarm which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton had expressed with regard to majorities, because he had always understood it to be one of the canons of the Liberal Party that trust should be placed in the majority.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 113 Noes 232: Majority 119.—(Div. List, No. 237.)
    MR. HALLEY STEWARTsaid, he begged to move an Amendment providing that the number of County Aldermen should not exceed one-sixth of the whole number of County Councillors, its object being to modify what he called the mischief of the Aldermanic element, and to put the County Councils throughout the country in the same position in this respect as the County Council of London. His proposal would make the provisions of the Bill symmetrical.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 30, after the word "alderman," insert—"Provided that the number of county aldermen shall not exceed one-sixth of the whole number of county councillors."—(Mr. Halley Stewart.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, the Government were unable to accept the Amendment. It had been generally recognized that London occupied a peculiar position. The case of London was a concession, and he thought it hard that, having made that concession, the Government should now be told that the Bill was not symmetrical in this matter, and that they should be pushed at this advanced stage with a question which had been already threshed out. They could not depart from the provisions in this regard of the Municipal Corporations Act.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid, he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give way in this matter, inasmuch as he had done so in regard to London.
    MR. CHANNINGsaid, he should support the Amendment.
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, he hoped the House would not accept the Amendment, which would have the effect of reducing the number of members in the Council, a very undesirable thing.
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, they altogether objected to the principle of Aldermen, and as this Amendment proposed to reduce their number, and, if carried, would minimize the evil, he would support it.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 126; Noes 197: Majority 71.—(Div. List, No. 238.)
    Other Amendments made.
    Further Proceedings adjourned till To-morrow.

  WALTHAM ABBEY GUNPOWDER FACTORY BILL.— [BILL 273.]
  (Mr. Brodrick, Mr. Secretary Stanhope.)
  WALTHAM ABBEY GUNPOWDER FACTORY BILL.— [BILL 273.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    DR. TANNERsaid, that this Bill was one which had met with considerable local opposition, and if any hon. Member wished to inquire into the circumstances of the case, he would find the subject a very intricate one. He would find that the Bill dealt with private rights of way in the county of Essex, close to the small town of Walthamstow. Several hon. Members sitting on that (the Opposition) side of the House had objected to the Bill time and again, as it was always brought on at an extremely late period of the Sitting. Seeing that the hour was now very late (12.5 a.m.), and that no discussion could take place upon this highly debateable subject, he hoped that the measure would not be gone on with to-night, but that it would be taken some other evening at an earlier hour.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK): As the hon. Member objects to the second reading, we will defer it till to-morrow.
    Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

  MOTIONS.

    EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1882 (KIRKCUDBRIGHT CHARITIES).—RESOLUTION.
    MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, he rose to move the Motion standing in his name, and though the matter dealt with in that Motion was a very important one, he did not at this hour of the night wish to detain the House at any length by discussing it. He had put down Notice of opposition to four different schemes of the Endowed School Commissioners, and in order to save the time of the House, and to make his case as strong a one as could be presented to the House, he proposed to deal with the four schemes together. He was quite aware that in Scotland, in very many instances, the principle had

    601
    been adopted by the Endowed Commissioners, with the consent of the Scottish Education Department, of departing from the original intentions of the pious founders in regard to these educational endowments. He could understand how the Endowed School Commissioners, in certain cases, had overlooked the wishes of these pious founders, and had diverted money which it had been originally intended to give in one direction into another direction. The powers given to the Commissioners by an Act of Parliament, under which they proceeded, were very large—much larger than those exercised by the original Trustees for these Charities. He did not wish to stigmatize by any condemnatory observations the dealings of the Commissioners with the various endowments, because he was quite sure that these gentlemen were animated by the best desires. They were presided over as Chairman by a Nobleman who was possessed of very considerable ability, and who had been actuated unquestionably by a sense of fairness in the action he had taken and instigated. But he (Mr. Mark Stewart) desired to draw the attention of the House to what ruled all the proceedings of the Commission. In the 15th section of the Endowed Schools Act, in relation to the framing of these schemes under the measure, the Commissioners were enjoined to respect alike the constitution of the Governing Bodies of the Charities and the educational provisions, having regard to the express intention of the pious founder. This was an important matter; but there was another point equally important which followed, and that was, that wherever there was any privilege or educational advantage which a particular class of persons were entitled to, whether as inhabitants of a particular area or as belonging to a particular class of life or otherwise, the Commissioners in drawing up any now scheme should have regard to the wishes of the pious founder in regard to such matters. It was because, he maintained, that this principle had not actuated the Commissioners in the cases to which his Motion referred, that he was now bringing the subject before the attention of the House. Again, the sections of the Act provided for the education of persons belonging to the poorer classes, and he further maintained that the endowments to which he was referring were
    602
    proposed to be diverted by the Commissioners into a very different channel from that originally intended. The Commissioners seemed to go out of their way to remove educational facilities from the path of the children of parents largely dependent upon the Charity in order to provide higher education for people not so circumstanced, and who were very well able to pay for the education of their children. The people who were to benefit under the proposed scheme belonged to the more affluent part of the community, and in this way he maintained the spirit of the pious founder was contravened. The Preamble of the Act under which the Commissioners operated, said that it was desirable to use the Educational Endowments of Scotland for the purpose of carrying out more fully the intentions of the founders, and in view of that he was more than ever surprised at the attitude which the Commissioners had taken up in the cases to which he would call attention. There were four specific schemes to which he desired very briefly to call the attention of hon. Members. The first was that in the parish of Balmaclellan, in the county of Kirkcudbright, called the Murdoch Endowment. This endowment amounted to about £80 a-year, and that had been used since 1786, for 100 years, for the purpose of giving free education to that particular parish, and he might point out that they had a very good teacher in that parish, a graduate of the University of London, who was entitled to all respect. To take away an endowment of this kind at this time of day, after its having been enjoyed for 100 years, and giving it not only to the parish in question, but to surrounding parishes, was looked upon as a great hardship. The pious founder gave power to purchase land in the stewartry of Kirkcudbright, the proceeds from which were to be given yearly to the schoolmaster. What were the objections to the scheme of the Commissioners? Why, they were as follows:—The scheme deprived the parish in question of the exclusive right to the bequest, and divided it for four different parishes, and provided for a higher education than the parish of Balmaclellan had hitherto been receiving. If they took away the money from the School Board, which had been utilizing it in paying a

    603
    higher class teacher, the result would be that the Commissioners would pay a lower salary and get a lower class teacher, so that the higher class teacher would not thrive, but would most assuredly fail. The parish of Balmaclellan was altogether against the scheme of the Commissioners; the people were with one heart and voice unanimous that this money should not be taken away from them, but that they should still have it distributed in their interest, as it had been for so long a period. And now he came to the Davies' Bequest, situated in the parish of Kells, at New Galloway. The money in this case was left for the particular purpose of founding a school, and the Commissioners had dealt very hardly with the endowment in this particular case. The amount of the endowment was only small—some £28 a-year, but there was some other money which belonged to the school which would, he was afraid, share the same fate as the larger amount. What did the parishioners say in this case? Why, they said that they were strongly opposed to spreading this £28 a-year over the whole of the four parishes. They declared that the original diatribution was one which was far more satisfactory and likely to be attended with more successful results. They held that the parish of Kells derived much more advantage under the old scheme than it would be likely to derive under the new, and that the new Governing Body would be a very expensive one. The parish already had a school board, and that board, with its machinery, was able to provide for the educational wants of the parish. The people trusted the school board, who knew their wants and wishes; and that was another very strong reason why they objected to the proposed scheme. Only £5 out of the £28 would be given back for the purposes of free education out of that parish, and, considering that this parish was one of enormous area, going very far back, and that it was in one of the wildest parts of Galloway, £5 seemed a ridiculously small sum to be given towards assisting expenditure necessary to enable the people of the district to obtain the advantages of elementary education. It was quite true that the parish got more money than that out of the £28—possibly they got more than £28 altogether. Then, again, the parishioners declared that
    604
    £10 was to be given by the scheme in order to obtain increased efficiency; but that it really would not help to do that at all, and the people would rather devote the money to scholarships or small bursaries—or one part of it, the other part going to maintain educational facilities for children in the lower Standards. He would now pass from this to the third scheme—namely, Johnston's Bequest, in the parish of Dalry. That was a small sum of only £5, and had been devoted to the payment of a good teacher and giving free education to a certain number of poor children. That was a very laudable and right way, in his opinion, of spending the money, and be was certain that it was the intention of the pious founder that it should go in that way. The parish had as large a population as that of Balmaclellan, to which he had already referred. And now, looking at the lateness of the hour, he would pass from that to the fourth bequest—namely, the M'Adam Bequest, in the parish of Carsphairn, in the stewartry of Kirkcudbright. This parish was situated far amongst the hills, and was probably one of the largest parishes in Scotland. It had an area of 54,000 acres, and a population of only 484 inhabitants. It was 20 miles, he might say, from the nearest town, and 18 miles from the nearest railway station. That was an endowment of some £30, which had been hitherto given to an itinerant teacher, who went from school to school, or rather from cottage to cottage, and presented last year some 14 pupils. Some of it was given to a teacher in the village of Carsphairn, which could not be called a town, and the educational results in that village had been most remarkable. It was as to these four small endowments that he brought forward his Motion. He asked the House to fairly consider the circumstances of these cases, and to decide that it was not necessary that the scheme of the Endowment Commissioners should become law. He begged to move the Resolution he had upon the Paper.
    DR. FARQUHARSONsaid, he rose for the purpose of seconding the proposal of his hon. Friend. He was glad the hon. Member had brought forward this Motion, because it was a very right thing to look sharply after the proceedings of the Endowed School Commissioners, and to

    605
    give the House an opportunity of considering their action in these cases when they came before the House. Many cases of this kind had been brought before the notice of hon. Members recently, and, no doubt, they were all much the same. In each case, as a rule, the money was left by the pious founder for one purpose, and the Commissioners held that it would be better to spend it for another purpose; and the House was asked to decide between the two parties. It was said that these bequests had been left for the purpose of relieving the rates, and even if that were so he did not know that it was a great crime to relieve the rates in small and very poor districts. In some of these places, as the Crofter Inquiry had shown, the rates were as high as 5s. and 6s. in the pound, and he did not know, if that were the case, why they should not have money loft for the purpose of relieving such rates, considering the poor of the neighbourhood. By endowments, such as those in question, very poor people who were verging on pauperism were relieved. No doubt, the poor people in these parishes might be able to find money to pay their rates; but it was a great drain upon their resources to find in addition money for the payment of their children's school fees every week. They were told that things had changed since these bequests had been made, and, no doubt, that was the case, but the money still belonged to the people of the poor districts. It was said that relief of this kind pauperized the people, and, if that were so, he would ask, how about the relief given the other way? People were not considered to be pauperized when they obtained relief from the School Board, for in many cases the only way in which the school fees could be met was by the parents going to the Parochial Board and obtaining relief from the payment, and those who knew anything about the proud feelings of independent Scotch-men would be aware how galling it was to these people to go and get relief under these conditions. He should like to put it for a moment whether it was not possible that they were educating too much in an upward direction, and whether it would not be better for many of the people concerned to give their children a good practical middle-class education which would fit them to work
    606
    at their own specific employment, and which education they would and useful in future life? What was the use of giving some of these poor people facilities for high-class education. He did not suppose there was a more useless person in the world than a young fellow from a poor rank of society who had been educated in a public school, and who had then gone to a University and taken an ordinary degree. Such a man knew as much about science as he knew about the interior of the moon, and if he desired, at any future time, to obtain a position in the world, he had to be ground down for it by dint of great exertion afterwards. Well, it was for the House to consider whether it was really advantageous for the poor people, for whom these endowments were originally intended, to be driven up into a position such as he described, and whether it was not better to spend this money in giving them a good practical education? They knew what went on in India. There were a large number of highly educated young men there who found it impossible to get any work at all. They were now groaning and grumbling, because they were without the employment which they had expected. There were no openings for them. Well, it was proposed that we should have the same thing in Scotland. There would be enormous pressure of highly educated people at home, educated in a certain abstract direction, for whom there was no work, and who, consequently, would become burdens upon the State in future life. All he had to say was, they ought to trust to the School Boards a little more than they did—and they should hand over a large part of this money which it was now proposed to spend in abstract bursaries to the School Boards to improve the general education in the small parishes. He thought they might fairly leave to the School Boards the administration of the funds which had been left by pious founders in past days. Even should those intentions of the pious founders be a little out of gear with the opinions of the present day, nevertheless, they might trust the School Boards to spend the money in a way which would be best calculated to benefit the districts concerned. He would say no more, but would simply second the Motion of his hon. Friend.
    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 endowments in the parishes of Balmaclellan, Dalry, Kells, and Carsphairn, in the stewartry of Kirkcudbright, known as the Murdoch Endowment, the Johnston Bequest, the Davies Bequest, and the M'Adam Bequest, approved by the Scottish Education Department, now lying upon the Table of the House."—(Mr. Mark Stewart.)
    MR. J. A. CAMPBELLsaid, his hon. Friends had inveighed against the action of the Commissioners, bringing against them the serious charge of taking away the advantages of the poor; but it would have been more to the point had they given the House information as to the scheme to which they objected, so that the House might have had the means of exercising its judgment thereon. This scheme, approved by the Scotch Education Department, was a method whereby, in the opinion of the Commissioners, the endowments would be utilized to greater advantage for the poor—for the very class from whom these four endowments were said to be taken away. The hon. Member for Kirkcudbright (Mr. Mark Stewart) complained of the Commissioners putting these four endowments together; but the grouping was an advantage, allowing of better administration than they could receive when separate. The endowments were small in amount, and attached to parishes that were contiguous, the populous parts of which were close together. The Assistant Commissioner, who examined and reported upon these endowments for the Commissioners, used this expression—"From the village of Dalry he could hear the church-bells of Kells and Balmaclellan."[An hon. MEMBER: Then he had very good ears.] It was said the Commissioners were taking away the advantages of the poor; but if his hon. Friend had given some information as to the scheme, it would have been seen that the bursaries proposed to be founded were reserved to those for whom the endowments were intended and who were in need of such assistance. The free school at Balmaclellan, in the opinion of the Commissioners, did very little more than save the rates. His hon. Friend asked—"Why not save the rates?" For this reason—that the rates were paid by persons comparatively
    608
    well-to-do, and to save the rates was to take away the benefit that should accrue to the poor from these endowments. The rates should be used as Parliament intended they should be used, and for the purposes for which they were levied, and the poor should have the benefit of the endowments in addition to the statutory provision made for them from the rates. In Balmaclellan there was a free school with an attendance of 72 children; but it did not show a very good record, not so good as other schools in these parishes, nor in the case of any of these endowments was the intention to encourage better education carried out; they were all used merely in relief of the rates. In Balmaclellan the school rate was 3d. in the pound; in Dalry it was the same; in Kells it was 4d.; and in Carsphairn, 6d. The Commissioners found that these endowments were not being used to the best advantage, and they proposed that the sum of £45 out of the united endowments should be distributed according to the necessities of the parishes in free scholarships, or the payment of school fees entirely for poor and deserving children, and that bursaries should be established for higher or technical education, and these, again, should only be given to children whose parents or guardians required aid in giving them education. Then there was a provision to make grants for improving the schools in these parishes, towards promoting higher education, but not in relief of any expenditure which the School Boards might reasonably be expected to incur out of the School Funds. There was a great tendency in parishes to use endowments simply in relief of the School Fund. Then with the remainder of the free income of the endowments, school bursaries were to be given for children whose parents or guardians were in circumstances to require aid in giving them higher education. The bursaries were open to all the four parishes, and the grants to the School Boards were divided according to their several circumstances and requirements; but the advantage of grouping the endowments together for the estabablishment of small bursaries would be to encourage emulation among the children, and to produce a general effect on the education of the district that could not be obtained by leaving the endowments to be frittered away in

    609
    relief of the rates. He hoped the House would not be carried away by what had been said by his hon. Friends about the Commissioners taking away the advantages of the poor. To do anything of that kind would be both contrary to the purpose of the Act of 1882, and certainly contrary to the intentions of the Commissioners. Indeed, there had been complaints that the Commissioners, in some instances, had too strongly insisted upon confining bursaries to the poor, in framing schemes for the application of endowments.
    MR. H. F. H. ELLIOTsaid, he had no intention to speak in reference to the circumstances of these particular endowments. He sympathized with much that had been said in support of the Motion; but, at the same time, he thought his hon. Friend would do well not to press the Motion to a Division. He could quite understand the view of the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Dr. Farquharson) that there was some use in bringing forward these questions for discussion, and, so to speak, "pegging away." But there was also a danger of dulling the interest and hardening opposition by too much persistency. On the whole, it would be well to withdraw the Motion, for the question raised was rather one of principle with regard to the operation of the Act of 1882, and that probably could be better argued and discussed on the Vote in Supply, or in some other way. Two observations he might be allowed to make in reference to the scheme. He did not think that enough had been said as to the extreme inconvenience of appropriating very small sums and bursaries, as was constantly done in these schemes. He did not believe in small bursaries. He did not believe that any bursary under £10 was of any use; but he had noticed that frequently small bursaries from £3 upwards were established. He did not believe that any boy could receive secondary education of any value for any such sum. All that happened was that the boy remained at school after he had passed the Fifth Standard. From this he did not derive much good, as there was no special inducement for the master to carry him on in his studies even if he always had sufficient training to do so. Another point was this. The House was a Court of Appeal for people who were dissatisfied with these schemes.
    610
    The functions of the House were of a semi-judicial character; but how did the House qualify itself to give an impartial decision? The Commissioners took evidence, upon which they framed their proposal; but it was quite possible the House was asked to give a decision without seeing a line of such evidence, for even if it was printed, it was not circulated with a view to such a decision. Of all questions ever brought before the notice of the House, such questions as these ought to be considered apart from Party associations. But when a Division was called—as he hoped it would not be in this instance—the Government Tellers were nominated to tell in favour of the scheme of the Commissioners, and thereupon, as hon. Members knew perfectly well, Members came in from the Lobbies, the Library, the Tea Room, and elsewhere, to vote as the Government Whips directed them. Was such a course of procedure right in view of the semi-judicial character of the decision? He thought not, and hoped the House would adopt some method of improving its procedure.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD)said, as he understood his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Mark Stewart) did not intend to accept the advice just tendered him, not to go to a Division, he would venture to say a few words. The hon. Member who had just resumed his seat (Mr. H. F. H. Elliot) objected to the Government Tellers being employed in these Divisions; but he (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) would remind his hon. Friend that the Division was called not merely upon the action of the Commissioners appointed under the Act, but also upon the sanction given by the Scotch Education Department to the scheme of the Commissioners, and therefore the Government were bound to use their Tellers, and ask the assistance of their supporters in maintaining the decision of a Government Department. Then, with reference to the other objection of the same hon. Member with regard to the small value of the bursaries—he quite agreed that bursaries for higher education, or to carry a boy through a College career, ought not to be of such small amounts; but these were not intended for higher education in that sense, but to induce children to remain under tuition after

    611
    they reached the Fifth Standard, so as to receive a little better education as the result of proficiency shown in school. One thing struck him as remarkable in the course of the discussion. The other night everything said against School Boards was received with a cheer, especially from English Members, who, he thought, were inclined to judge of Scotch School Boards from their opinion of English Boards. But now, the complaint was quite different to that, when the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Aberdeen (Dr. Farquharson) had an objection of his own—that School Boards were not trusted enough. The hon. Member complained also of a proposal to put an end to a state of things which saved the rates, and he said—"Why should not the rates be saved." Well, he (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) understood all along that the great object and policy of these endowments were to aid education for the poor, not to save the rates spread all over the parish, but to give some additional advantage beyond that provided by law to poor children in the parish in the way of education. But his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Mark Stewart) said the effect of the scheme of the Commissioners would save the rates, and nothing else; but his hon. Friend could not have recently read the scheme of the Commissioners, or he would remember that the scheme was distinctly based on the arrangement that if the School Board did apply the endowments merely to saving the rates, then they were to be taken away from their control. It was provided that the new Governing Body should, from time to time, satisfy themselves that the fund was being efficiently applied to higher education, and not to the relief of any expenditure the School Board might reasonably be expected to incur out of the school fund, and if it appeared to the Governors that any part of the endowment was not being applied in the manner intended, then they were to cease making the annual payments to the School Board contemplated under the scheme. Therefore, so far as saving the rates was concerned, his hon. Friend was entirely out of court in his argument.
    MR. MARK STEWARTrose, and begged to explain that he said the money to be given to the School Board could be better utilized for purposes of
    612
    education by the board, knowing as they did the wants of the parish better than the Commissioners could.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDcontinued: This came very strangely in reference to a scheme in the administration of which four members of the School Boards, one from each parish, would form the majority on the new Governing Body. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last (Mr. H. F. H. Elliot) urged a very good reason against carrying the Motion to a Division. He said the real objection was an objection to the principle of the Act passed by the Legislature and not to this particular scheme in itself. That was clearly brought out, and one of the strongest objectors had spoken of that Act as—
    "The most revolutionary Act ever passed by a British Parliament, and preparing the way for a repetition of some of the worst features of the French Revolution."
    Objection had been raised to the amalgamation of these funds. The Act of Parliament expressly provided for the decision of the Commissioners on the point, and could any hon. Member deny that if there was ever a case for amalgamation it was in this case, where there were four very small endowments indeed, and in which, as amalgamated, the endowments were made of much greater benefit? He called attention to what was done not many years after the foundation of the Murdoch Bequest, the largest of the four. The founder himself was clearly of opinion, from the terms of the bequest, that if it was to be tied down to a hard and fast line, it might be applied much too narrowly, and so it was not so tied down; and upon the death of the founder, in 1780, his friend and executor introduced certain changes, and, in doing so, said he did it with an anxious desire to carry out the founder's views, which he shared, and, knowing him well, was satisfied that, had he lived a few years longer, he would have established it on a still wider basis. The Commissioners had endeavoured to carry out their scheme in that spirit, and that he thought they had fairly done. They had applied the fund to meet the case of necessitous children only, who were worthy of such assistance, and he thought the House would agree that the Commissioners had done their duty under the Act.
    MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, that so far he knew, there had been no charge brought against any of the Governing Bodies managing the different Trusts and Bequests for the period of 100 years, as to the manner in which they had carried out the intentions of the founders. They had done a vast deal of good in the districts for whose benefit these bequests had been intended.
    MR. C. S. PARKERsaid, that without detaining the House unduly, he wished simply to say—[Cries of "Divide!"] Well, he had sat there two or three evenings during the last fortnight, listening to similar discussions, without having uttered as yet one word in protest against these undeserved attacks upon the Endowments Commissioners. What he wanted to say was this—that their opponents were only a small minority of Members from Scotland. Where were the majority? Why, they had confidence in the Commissioners, and in the Education Department, and had gone home, leaving those few who objected to the well-considered schemes of the Commissioners to advocate alternative proposals. But what he complained of was, that of these opponents some had not taken the pains even to read the schemes, while others objected to them only because they gave effect too faithfully to the intentions of Parliament recorded in the Act in favour of higher education. A more Philistine speech against higher education he had seldom heard than that of his hon. Friend who had seconded the Resolution. At the same time, it did not appear that the hon. Member had ever looked at the scheme, because he had talked about Indian Baboos and University bursaries, neither of which were in question; but had said nothing about the actual proposal of the Commissioners, to divide the endowments between free elementary education for the poor, school bursaries for those who required help, and strengthening the staff of village schools. Then again, as everybody knew, the hon. Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan), and the hon. Member who spoke last, had been hot opponents of the Act, and therefore condemned every scheme. He agreed with the hon. Member for North Ayrshire (Mr. H. F. H. Elliot) when he said that what those hon. Members really meant was not opposition to this or that scheme, but to the principle of en-
    614
    trusting the formation of schemes to the Commissioners and to the Education Department. The hon. Member himself had a proposal before the House for giving an appeal to a Committee of the House, and when that proposal was brought forward it would be worthy of consideration. But, in the meantime, he thought it was too bad that the Commissioners, who were merely carrying out the wishes of the House in making the Governing Bodies of these endowments more representative, and in promoting higher education, should be attacked, as hon. Members attacked them time after time, in a spirit of persistent opposition, and often without even reading the schemes they proposed. An appeal had been made to hon. Members not to give a Party vote. But this was in no sense a Party question. It was a case in which the Education Department was responsible for having confirmed the action of the Commissioners, and the Government therefore were defending that decision against the attacks of miscellaneous Members from both sides of the House.
    MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTsaid, he was afraid he must appear before the House as one of those "miscellaneous Members" of whom the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. C. S. Parker) had spoken. But, in reply to the hon. Member, he would just like to say this—that on the Motion he (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) had made the other day somewhat akin to the proposal now before the House, he had had the support in the Division Lobby of that hon. Member himself. The hon. Member was, at any rate, in good company in so doing, because, if hon. Members from Scotland who had gone into the Lobby with him (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) and the hon. Member (Mr. C. S. Parker) were "miscellaneous," they were also numerous. Whilst 20 Members representing Scottish constituencies had gone in the Lobby to support his Motion, only six Scotch Members had gone in the Lobby against him, of whom three were Members of the Government. He was not going into the scheme before the House that night; but he wished to point out this—that hon. Members were not voting against the Act of Parliament, but simply wished to carry out the objects of that Act, the Act declaring that in some way the House of Commons

    615
    was to be a sort of appeal from the Scottish Education Department and the Scottish Office. Well, but was the House of Commons a Court of Appeal from either of those constituted Bodies? He maintained that it was not, and that it was true that a majority of Scottish Members—those Members who were best acquainted with the circumstances of these cases—in the Division were in favour of the Motion and against the views of the Scottish Education Department, yet people came in from the Smoking Room and Library and other places outside the House on the ringing of the Division Bell and outvoted the Scottish Members. He protested against the opinions of the people of Scotland being over-ridden in that way; and as to the attitude of the hon. Member near him (Mr. C. S. Parker), he was at a loss how to understand his views and his actions as compared with those he exhibited the other night. He should like to see the hon. Member guided by some sort of principle which, at any rate, would give a semblance of consistency to his action.
    MR. C. S. PARKERasked leave to make a personal explanation. He was much indebted to the hon. Member for challenging him as to the vote he had given the other night. No doubt, he had been that night a "miscellaneous Member." He had given his vote against the Commissioners; but he was glad of this opportunity to explain that he went into the "Aye" Lobby by mistake. It was by mere mistake that his vote was given in favour of the Motion.
    MR. HUNTERsaid, he did not wish to detain the House; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate had made such a serious mistake as to the views of those who opposed these schemes generally, and that mistake had been so exaggerated by the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. C. S. Parker), who quite misunderstood their position, that he felt bound to say a word or two. He (Mr. Hunter) was as much in favour of secondary education as anyone else, and he entirely approved of the policy of the Act; but his objection to what took place was this—and he invited the Lord Advocate's attention to it—that in these cases money had been left for the education of poor children. He and his Friends did not in the least object to that money being applied to the higher education, or second-
    616
    ary education, of these children; but what they did object to was, that these funds which were left for the benefit of the poor were used for the purpose of cheapening the education of middle-class children. He did not say that every scheme in its whole extent was liable to that objection, and it was only in so far as a scheme was open to that objection that they opposed it. It was on that ground, and on that ground only, that they took action, and if they sometimes differed from the schemes of the Commissioners, it was only right that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate should understand their position.
    SIR JOHN SWINBURNEsaid that the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. C. S. Parker) had appealed to English Members, and he (Sir John Swinburne) hoped that English Members would listen to his appeal and support the Motion before the House. He did not care what the particular object of the scheme of the Commissioners was; but he held that all those schemes would be much better arranged and managed if the trustees or managers were elected by the rateyayers of the particular districts.
    MR. JOHNSTONrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    MR. SPEAKERwithheld his assent, and declined then to put the Question.
    MR. CONWAYsaid, that, considering the House was composed of so many Scottish School Managers, he was surprised that hon. Members were so ignorant of the Scottish Code which went to the good working of the Scottish schools. He was surprised that hon. Members had not in their minds that the First Table concerned elementary education, and the Second Table and the Fourth Schedule covered the whole basis of the secondary education, and he appealed to the Vice President of the Education Department to bear out what he said. There were under Schedule IV. 10 subjects covering science; and they were also in Scotland enabled to take up French, German, and Latin subjects. This scheme which was set before them would enable the school managers, if they had the opportunity, to take advantage of the funds placed at their disposal by the Government, and of covering the 17 8. 6d. limit. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side ought to

    617
    know what that meant. They ought to know that under that 17 s. 6d. limit, they were prohibited from receiving the grant unless they had resources outside the Government grant of above 17 s. 6d. Therefore, it behoved the Government in this matter to contribute to those schools which were not under School Boards. [Cries of "Divide!"] He told hon. Members opposite that he was advocating their own case, as they would see if they would only listen. It behoved the Government, under this scheme, by means of the money placed at the disposal of the schools not under the School Board, to obtain funds sufficient in themselves to enable the school managers to obtain grants under Schedules II. and IV. which would cover secondary education.
    Question put,
    The House divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 85: Majority 33.—(Div. List, No. 239.)

    EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1882 (HUTTON TRUST).

      RESOLUTION.
      MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, he would promise the House that at that late hour (1 a.m.) he would not detain hon. Members at any great length with the next Motion. He might briefly say that many of the arguments used against schemes of the Commissioners within the last few days applied to this case, and it would be unnecessary to repeat them. The locality to which the Trust related was not in his county, but in the neighbouring county to that he had the honour to represent, but the endowment related to a parish in which he lived, and he was well aware of the circumstances. The great objection to this scheme was, that it took away from the poor of the parish the benefit of £900 or £1,000 a-year which they had enjoyed for 180 years. It was now proposed to take away the major part, or a very considerable portion of the endowment, subdividing it into bursaries, mainly for higher education. Although the poor would receive a certain amount of benefit under the scheme, they would not got the whole amount they were entitled to. His second objection was that the scheme entirely altered the Governing Body. The will of the founder laid great stress upon religious education
      618
      and the administration of the fund by ministers of religion of the parish. The scheme altered that in a great measure. No doubt, they had a representative on the new Governing Body; but they would not have that control the founder intended they should have. Further, the people complained that their full right to the fund was not secured, and under the scheme it might be applied outside the parish. Much might be said, though he would not now trouble the House with it, on the legal aspect of the question. It was argued, and with some force, that inasmuch as the grant was vested in the ministers of Kirk Sessions, that it did not come within the provisions of the Act of 1882, and the Commissioners had no right to touch it or interfere with it. The poor parishioners felt it a very great hardship that this Bequest should be submitted to the very rigorous procedure of the Act. He would not, however, go at length into the case, but merely stated the outline of the objections that induced him to give Notice of his Motion.
      MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTseconded the Motion.
      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 Endowments in the parish of Caerlaverock, county of Dumfries, known as the Hutton Trust, approved by the Scottish Education Department, now lying upon the Table of the House."
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD)said, as his hon. and learned Friend, in bringing forward his objection, had told the House that it was the opinion among the inhabitants of the parish that the scheme of the Commissioners was contrary to law, it might be sufficient for him to say—and the House would agree with him—that this was not the time or place to dispose of that point. If the action of the Commissioners was contrary to law, then a Court of Law could set it aside, and the House had nothing to do with that point. He might briefly give the history of the Trust—[Cries of "No, no!"]—he would promise to be brief. The original capital placed £900 at the disposal of the trustees, but they, apparently not finding fitting objects upon which to dispose of the income, had

      619
      allowed it to accumulate, and the income was now £1,070 per annum. This was expended in doles for the poor, with the usual result of extensive doles in a small parish—that the poor became so demoralized that at the present moment the expenditure for the poor from the rates was higher than anywhere else in Scotland, and equalled £1 per head of the population. He observed that his hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot), in spite of his strictures upon Members who took part in Divisions without hearing the discussion, had left the House before he learned what the scheme proposed by the Commissioners really was. It was proposed that a third should be applied to the relief of the poor, and that the rest should be devoted to education, the payment of a school teacher, the payment of fees of poor and deserving children, and in bursaries. He did not think the House would deny it was an improvement on the state of things existing and a better application of the endowment.
      Question put, and negatived.

    COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
    Ordered, That the Committee of Selection have leave to make a Special Report.
    SIR JOHN MOWBRAYaccordingly reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Member to the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in respect of the Liability of Trustees Bill [Lords]: Mr. Godson.
    Report to lie upon the Table.
    House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Forest of Dean Turnpike Trust* (232).
Second Reading—Indian Councils Act, 1861, Amendment (224).
Committee—Libel Law Amendment (231); Companies (153–236).
Third Reading—Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Ireland) (1877) Amendment (199–235); Coroners (36); Land Charges Registration and Searches (221), and passed; Companies Clauses Consolidation Act (1845) Amendment (230), discharged.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Second Reading—Pier and Harbour (No. 2)* (223).
Report—Local Government (No. 13)* (207).

INDIAN COUNCILS ACT, 1861, AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 224.)
(The Viscount Cross.)
INDIAN COUNCILS ACT, 1861, AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 224.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was simply to rectify a mistake in the drafting of the Act of 1861.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Viscount Cross.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly) and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

LIBEL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Monkswell.)
(NO. 190.) COMMITTEE.
House again in Committee (according to order).
LORD MONKSWELLsaid, he did not propose to move any new clause to take the place of Clause 7, which had been struck out, because Clause 7 was really very much the same as Clause 7 in Lord Campbell's Act. He agreed with what the Lord Chief Justice stated the other night as to the great undesirability of having two enactments on the Statute Book dealing with the same subject-matter in much the same way, and he preferred the section in Lord Campbell's Act, because it had been the subject of judicial interpretation.
Clause 10 (This Act shall not apply to Scotland).
THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: Why is the Bill not to apply to Scotland?
LORD MONKSWELL: Because the existing Law of Libel is different there from that in England, and somewhat resembles what the law will be if this Bill is passed.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 11 (Short title) agreed to.
House resumed.
On Question that the Bill be reported?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, that he was under the

503
impression that a new clause would be proposed to make a person liable for a libel spoken at a public meeting in the same manner as if it were published in a newspaper.
LORD MONKSWELLsaid, that a new clause for the purpose would be proposed on the Report.
LORD HALSBURYsaid, he understood that some remarks made on the last occasion when the Bill was before the House, in reference to the clause moved by the Lord Chief Justice (Lord Coleridge) providing that criminal prosecution for libels published in newspapers should not be instituted without the fiat of the Attorney General or an order of a Judge at Chambers, had been thought to reflect on the manner in which the Public Prosecutor had exercised his duties in granting fiats for criminal prosecutions for libel. He (Lord Halsbury) felt sure that they were not made in that sense—there was no intention to cast any reflection upon him. He had received a letter from Sir Augustus Stephenson embodying some statistics from which it appeared that since his appointment 82 applications had been made to him under Section 3 of the Newspaper Libel Act, of which 53 were refused, 27 were granted, one was withdrawn, and one stood over for consideration. Those figures showed conclusively that the fiat of the Public Prosecutor was not granted as a matter of course, as the Lord Chief Justice seemed to suppose. He (Lord Halsbury) was quite satisfied that Sir Augustus Stephenson was the very last person to discharge any duty he undertook in anything like a perfunctory manner.
LORD COLERIDGE (LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND)said, nothing was further from his mind when he proposed his Amendment than to cast any imputation upon Sir Augustus Stephenson. On that occasion he did not profess to give any opinion of his own; he simply read a letter which was addressed to him by the secretary of a large body of newspaper proprietors embodying their views, and expressing a wish that some such clause as that which he moved should be added to the Bill. As to the general functions of the Public Prosecutor, if it became necessary, he should be glad to call the attention of their Lordships to that matter, but at present
504
he did not desire to enter into any discussion.
Question put, and agreed to.
The Report of the Amendments made in Committee to be received on Tuesday next.

COMPANIES BILL.—(No. 153.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
COMPANIES BILL.—(No. 153.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House again in Committee (according to order).
  Clause 7 (Particulars to be disclosed by prospectus).
  Amendment moved, to omit Sub-section 1, and insert the following words:—
  "Any contract, provision, or arrangement entered into before the complete registration of a registered company whereby any liability is imposed on the company to pay money or money's worth to any person or to confer any advantage, pecuniary or otherwise, on any person (other than such moneys and advantages as are payable to or conferred on all the shareholders of the company) shall, unless notice of such liability is given in any prospectus of the company, or unless such liability is adopted by a general meeting of the company summoned to decide on such adoption, be void to all intents as against the company."—(The Lord Thring.)
  LORD THURLOWsaid, he could not help thinking that if this proposed clause were adopted as it stood, and the 4th sub-section repealing Section 38 of the Companies Act, 1867, were to remain as it stood in the Bill, a very great safeguard to the investing public would be struck away.
  LORD BRABOURNEwas of opinion that the clause would not have the effect,—no doubt intended by its authors—namely, to insure greater care in the issue of the prospectus. If any person who was a party to such an issue was bound under a penalty to disclose the particulars of a great many things which were "within his knowledge," the result might be either that respectable persons might be deterred from becoming Directors of perfectly good undertakings, or that those who became Directors would take care not to allow matters to be "within their knowledge" which might bring them within the provisions of the clause.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he thought that the section proposed by the noble Lord was a very valuable one, and he would be

  505
  glad to incorporate it in the Bill, but he could not consent to omit Sub-section 1. He would accept the clause in addition to, and not in lieu of, that sub-section.
  Amendment, to omit Sub-section 1 (by leave of the Committee), withdrawn.
  New Clause agreed to.
  On the Motion of The Lord CHANCELLOR, Amendment made, in page 3, line 39, by omitting ("is party to,") and inserting ("authorizes").
  LORD THURLOW moved at the end of Sub-section 3 to add—
  "Excepting in the case of such ordinary trading or business contracts as may be either too numerous to recite or might be prejudicial to the interests of the company to disclose."
  He said, he thought it very undesirable to allow persons to frame a prospectus with the view of contracting themselves out of the law; but it might be impossible in the contents of a prospectus to give all the contracts which might have been entered into.
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, he quite saw what the noble Lord meant by the Amendment, and he recognized the importance of the matter. If the noble Lord would withdraw the Amendment he would consider the question.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Copies of prospectus to be filed with registrar).
  LORD THURLOW, in moving to omit the words "signed by," and to insert "bearing the names of," pointed out the great inconvenience that might arise if a Director were ill or abroad, and contended that some such amendment of the clause ought to be made in order to enable Companies to carry on their business.
  Amendment moved, in page 4, line 39, leave out ("signed by,") and insert ("bearing the name of").—(The Lord Thurlow.)
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, he was afraid he could not accept the Amendment. If the Amendment were agreed to, it would be very difficult to fix the responsibility for the statements in the prospectus on anyone.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that, in his opinion, unless the clause was amended,
  506
  it would often have the effect of paralyzing the business operations of a Company.
  LORD THURLOWhoped the noble and learned Lord would reconsider the point. He could not quite agree that the clause, if amended in the way he suggested, would afford no protection. His reading of the law was that every Director was legally responsible if his name appeared on the prospectus.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he might point out that people's names had often been put on lists of Directors who had never consented to act in that capacity.
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, he had known cases in which gentlemen whose names had appeared on prospectuses had absolutely repudiated their responsibility.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that the remarks of the noble and learned Lord only referred to new Companies. As he had said already in the case of established Companies, if a Director was ill or at the other end of the world, it would be impossible to carry on their business if the clause stood.
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, he would agree to introduce words into the clause which would confine the effect of the clause to the first issue of a prospectus.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Moved to insert the following New Clause after Clause 8:—
  "On and after the commencement of this Act it shall not be lawful for any company to recognise or permit any dealings in or transfers of the shares of the company previous to allotment; and any company so infringing under this section shall render itself liable to a fine of £50 in each case of such infringement, and may be held to be guilty of a misdemeanour."—(The Lord Thurlow.)
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, he would accept the clause in substance; but it would, he thought, require amendment.
  Clause amended, by the omission of the words ("and may be held to be guilty of a misdemeanour,") and agreed to.
  LORD THURLOW LORD THURLOW moved the following as a New Clause:—
  "On and after the commencement of this Act it shall be lawful for any company to issue

  507
  any portion of its capital at such a premium or at such a discount as may have been sanctioned at a general meeting of the shareholders of the company by a majority of not less than two-thirds of their number present and voting or duly represented by proxies."
  He thought that this was a matter of some importance. It had exercised the minds of the London Chamber of Commerce and other great Bodies, and he thought their Lordships ought to deal with it.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEthought the clause would be highly objectionable unless it was confined to the issue of new capital.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORDsaid, he hoped the House would decide this question one way or the other, as at present the law on the matter was very unsettled.
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, some of their Lordships would probably have to settle this point in their judicial capacity. He could not accept the clause, but would consider the point with which it dealt before the Report stage.
  Clause (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause 9 (Restriction on allotment of shares and debentures) agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Prohibition of purchase of shares by company) agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Liability of directors, &c. in respect of qualifying shares).
  Amendment moved, to leave out Clause 11, and insert the following Clause:—

  "(1.) The articles of association of the company shall state the number of shares required as qualification for holding the office of a director of the company, and every case whore a director, as a vendor or otherwise, acquires such qualification otherwise than by payment in cash, in the same manner as public subscribers, shall be fully disclosed on the prospectus.

  (2.) Any default in complying with this section shall render the person so defaulting liable to a fine not exceeding ten pounds for every day during which the default continuos."—(The Lord Thurlow.)

  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, that it was most undesirable, as well as unfair, that Directors should be placed in a different position from all the other shareholders, and compelled to pay up the whole of the capital which they might have invested in the Company, whilst other shareholders might only be called upon
  508
  to pay up half, one-third, or one-fourth, according to circumstances. If this proposal were seriously made, it should also be provided that interest should be paid to the Directors upon the sum which they were thus obliged to pay in advance of everybody else.
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, that the objections taken to the clause, as it stood in the Bill, were from the Directors' point of view. The object of the clause was to insist on the Directors really paying for their shares, and to insure their really taking an interest in the concern. He maintained that the Directors should have a real and not merely a colourable qualification, as was suggested. He could not, therefore, support the Amendment.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that taking as an example the case of a bank which was converting itself into a Company, it would be absurd to require the partners not only to give up the concern to the new Company, but to pay cash for their shares as well.
  LORD BRABOURNEcould not allow it to be said that his objection was "from the Directors' point of view." He spoke on behalf of the shareholders, whose interest it was to get good Directors, and good Directors would not submit to troublesome or onerous conditions. The truth was that this Bill was founded upon benevolent principles, but would be most inconvenient in its operation. It aimed at two impossible things—one, to prevent foolish people from investing their money foolishly; the other, to aid commercial operations by embarrassing and restricting them. This kind of legislation was very injurious to commercial enterprize, which commercial men could carry on much better if they were allowed greater freedom of action. He (Lord Brabourne) knew that this remark was more suited to the second reading of the Bill than to one of its clauses; but this clause was an example of the whole, and was really one of so absurd a character that it was impossible it could receive the sanction of Parliament.
  On Question, "That Clause 11 stand part of the Bill?" Their Lordships divided:—Contents 23; Non-Contents 29: Majority 6.
  Clause struck out.
  New Clause agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Audit of accounts of companies) agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Balance sheet).
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he bad great doubts as to this clause, because it compelled every Company to make disclosures which many Companies now perfectly solid and substantial found it their interest not to make. In these days of keen competition many Companies, as part of their constitution, did not give more than limited information, and the shareholders were perfectly content it should be so.
  LORD THURLOWsaid, he quite concurred in the observations of the noble and learned Lord.
  LORD HALSBURYexplained that he was now in communication with the Board of Trade, with the view of meeting the objections which had been urged, and he suggested that the matter should be postponed till Report.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 19 (Provisions as to valuation of plant, &c.).
  LORD THURLOW LORD THURLOW moved to omit the latter part of the clause requiring that there should be appended to the balance sheet "a detailed statement of cost of all items which have been added to capital account since the issue of the last balance sheet." He objected to this provision as vexatious in its character, and prejudicial to the interests of Companies.
  Amendment moved, in page 6, line 37, leave out from ("property") to end of the sub-section.—(The Lord Thurlow.)
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, this clause had been urged upon him by a great number of persons who had shown that people were constantly being defrauded, and particularly the working classes, by the plant belonging to certain Companies being grossly misrepresented in respect of its value.
  LORD THURLOWsaid, he hoped the noble and learned Lord would seriously consider this matter before Report. In many cases it would be absolutely impossible to give the information.
  LORD THRINGsaid, he was in favour of the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On the Motion of Lord THURLOW, Amendment made, in page 6, sub-
  510
  section (2), line 43, by leaving out from ("deducted") to end of the sub-section.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  On the Motion of Lord BASING, the following New Clauses were inserted after Clause 14:—
  (Power to amend memorandum of association with consent of the court.)
  "Any company limited by shares may, by special resolution, so far modify the conditions contained in its memorandum of association as to extend the objects of the company or to increase its power for carrying out its objects; provided that the extended objects shall be of a similar nature to those for which the company was established, but no such resolution shall come into operation until an Order of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice confirming the resolution, either wholly or partially, shall have been registered by the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies in the manner hereinafter mentioned."
  (Company to apply to the court for an order confirming resolution.)
  "A company which has passed a special resolution as provided for in the last-mentioned section, may apply to the court, by petition, for an order confirming the resolution; and on the hearing of the petition, the court, if satisfied that the consent of every creditor of the company has been obtained, or his debt or claim has been discharged, or has determined, or has been secured in the manner provided by sections thirteen and fourteen of the Companies Act, 1867, and that the several classes of shareholders, if any, other than ordinary shareholders, have to the extent of three-fourths at least in number and value of such shares assented thereto, may make an order confirming the resolution on such terms and subject to such conditions as it deems fit."
  (Order of the court to be registered.)
  "The Registrar of Joint Stock Companies upon the production to him of an order of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice confirming the resolution, and the delivery to him of a copy of the order [and of a minute approved by the court showing that the consent of creditors had been obtained or security given as provided by sections thirteen and fourteen of the Companies Act, 1867] shall register the order [and minute] and on the registration the special resolution confirmed by the order so registered shall take effect. Notice of such registration shall be published in such manner as the court may direct.
  The registrar shall certify under his hand the registration of the order [and minute] and his certificate shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this Act with respect to the subject matter of the order have been duly complied with."
  Clause 15 (Report by liquidator on winding up, and proceedings thereupon).
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he would suggest the employment of the Official

  511
  Receiver as liquidator in the winding up of Companies. The Official Receiver was a public official having no interest but that of the public. In the Bankruptcy Act very strict provisions were inserted requiring reports from time to time, meetings of creditors, declarations of dividends, or reasons why the dividends were not declared. Under the existing system the liquidation of Companies lingered on, and there was no such strict insistance on periodical reports as was exacted from the Official Receiver in Bankruptcy. A great deal of scandal would be avoided if the system which he recommended were introduced. At all events, the liquidation of small Companies should be carried on in bankruptcy. In the case of large Companies it was not of so much importance; but he really did not see why the time of the Official Receiver should not be utilized, and there would be this advantage—that he would be an independent officer. The whole subject required consideration.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he did not know whether what his noble and learned Friend had suggested could be done by the present Bill; but he expressed a hope that his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack would be able to deal with the subject in a comprehensive measure.
  Clause agreed to.
  LORD THURLOW, in moving to insert after Clause 15 a new clause, said, that, under the present law, the liquidator became master of the situation during liquidation; there were no means of bringing him to book and making him account from time to time for what was going on. It would give more satisfaction if the liquidator were placed more in the position of a servant of the shareholders whose interests were at stake, and if the shareholders were enabled to dismiss him if they chose and appoint a new liquidator.
  Moved to insert, after Clause 15, the following New Clause:—
  "Where a company is being wound up voluntarily the liquidator shall, once in every year during the liquidation, call a general meeting of the shareholders of the company, giving not less than eight days' notice, and submit a printed report and balance sheet of the affairs of the company, and of the proceedings during the year, for the approval and confirmation of the shareholders; and it shall be competent to
  512
  the shareholders, by a majority of not less than three-fourths of those present or represented by proxies, to pass such resolutions bearing on the conduct of the liquidation as they may deem expedient: Provided that any such resolution be subject to confirmation by a three-fourths majority vote at a subsequent shareholders meeting to be called by the liquidator within not less than eight nor more than sixteen days from the date of the first meeting."—(The Lord Thurlow.)
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, he would not absolutely object to the clause; but he thought if the matter was to be dealt with it should be on wider lines. The proposed clause only dealt with a small part of a much larger subject which undoubtedly required consideration.
  THE EARL of SELBORNEthought the clause might be adopted now without the least prejudice to the larger treatment of the question hereafter.
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to, with Amendments.
  House resumed; Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 236.)

WAR OFFICE—RIFLE RANGE AT BROWNDOWN (THE SOLENT).

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD COLVILLE OF CULROSS, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether it is true that the War Department has applied to the Board of Trade to have a large portion of the sea, on the north shore of the Solent, buoyed off for the purpose of a rifle range at Browndown; whether it is not the case that the firing at that range is towards the sea, and whether the limit of the range so buoyed a little more than 1,000 yards from the butts on the shore, is not in the fairway of men-of-war and all other classes of vessels proceeding from The Needles, Southampton Water, Cowes Roads, &c., towards Spithead and Portsmouth; and whether the enclosure of such a portion of the sea and foreshore will not further interfere with the fishing industry of the Solent, which has already been much injured by the submarine experiments carried out by the Naval and Military Departments? said, that this subject was creating great anxiety in the neighbourhood of the Isle of Wight, as well as at Southampton and Portsmouth, and chiefly among those who navigated the Solent. A rifle range had existed for many

  513
  years at Browndown, and it had been a source of very great danger to navigation. A noble Marquess near him (the Marquess of Exeter) had had some unpleasant experience of this danger, and a gallant Admiral had told him that, when passing in his yacht, a bullet passed through his mainsail 5 feet above his head. Another yacht-owner told him that a bullet from the range lodged in the hull of his yacht. The butts were on the sea shore, the targets being 6 feet high and the butts about 10 feet. A large board on the top, which bore the number of the butt, was riddled with bullets, and every one of the bullets that struck that board must have gone into the fairway of the Solent. The War Department had now applied to the Board of Trade for leave to enclose a very large area of the open sea for the purpose of forming a sort of mare sacrum in the rear of the butts. The distance from the butts to the extreme limit of the water to be buoyed off was something more than 1,000 yards, but the rifles now in use were sighted up to 1,400 yards, and, if sufficiently elevated, would, he believed, carry over throe miles. He would be told there was great difficulty in finding ranges in these days. He admitted that; but he was of opinion, and so were many others to whom he had spoken, that a range could be found near Portsmouth without firing into a crowded fairway. A range might very easily be found, for instance, at the foot of the Portsdown Hills, and there there would be no danger. He would now deal with the case of the fishermen. It had been calculated that the space to be buoyed off would be nearly a square mile, or about 600 acres In answer to questions put to him, one of the oldest and most experienced fishermen of the Solent said that he considered the ground to be enclosed was a part of the very best fishing ground inside the Isle of Wight for trawling, dredging, and drifting. From July to December there was no ground inside the Island equal to it. It was also the best for oysters. He said about 100 fishermen worked over it. The fishing in the Solent had already been very much injured by torpedoes and other submarine explosives, and the take of fish was nothing like what it used to be. Taking away this ground from the fishermen would simply mean ruination. During the months of September and
  514
  October this fishing ground was crowded with boats catching whiting. Even if permission were given to fish the ground when rifle practice was not going on, they would not avail themselves of it. The fishermen would not risk their nets and trawls in a space occupied by the anchors and other ground gear necessary to keep the War Department buoys in their places. He trusted he would hear from his noble Friend that the project had been given up.
  THE EARL OF NORMANTONsaid, that he had known Browndown 40 years or more and was personally and intimately acquainted with the place where experiments were being carried on, but had no personal interest in the matter. For many years past he had not been a yacht-owner, and he did not think he was likely to be one in the present state of agriculture. He said this, however—he should not be surprised if, before this controversy were ended, they were told that it was a question which only affected yachts and yacht-owners; but it was not so. The real interests affected were the coasting traders and the fishermen. With regard to the former, he contended that in certain states of weather the proposed rifle range would render the entrance to Southampton very dangerous and difficult. With regard to the fishing industry, he received the other day a letter from a gentleman acquainted with the locality, in which he said—
  "We are talking of nothing else but the proposed encroachment of the War Office. It will practically enclose the best ground for trawling and live baiting."
  Again, it was probable that the soldiers, knowing they had this expanse of water behind the butts, would be more reckless than before.
  "Recent events had not said much for the popularity of Her Majesty's Government in the neighbourhood of Southampton, and it was not likely to be improved by the scheme proposed, if carried out,"
  He trusted his noble Friend would receive a satisfactory answer.
  THE MARQUESS OF EXETERsaid, that having had some experience of the dangers likely to happen from this rifle range, he wished to add his testimony to that of his noble Friends. Over and over again, when he himself was fishing, he had heard the bullets whizz over his head. He would, however, especially

  515
  appeal to the Government on behalf of the fishermen, whose main fishing ground was rendered dangerous owing to this range. He had received a letter from an Artillery officer in which the danger of this range was asserted, and in which a case was mentioned of a fisher man who, in the month of October, 1886, while fishing in his boat, was shot in the leg. This was one instance showing the danger, and other similar cases had occurred. It was the ricochet shots of the new recruits which were of greatest danger. The range was dangerous to an important sea thoroughfare, and also to a most valuable fishing ground, and if the War Office could not remove it altogether, the Authorities ought at least to alter the angle at which it was now situated, and earth butts at least 40 feet high ought to be erected.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord HARRIS)said, the ranges at Browndown had been in existence for upwards of half-a-century, and if the Military Authorities had not been as careful as they had been, this matter would probably never have been raised at all. Two years ago a measure entitled the Artillery Rifle Range Act was passed, which had been rendered necessary because of people obstructing the firing at ranges—at one range in particular—and power was taken to provide bye-laws for the safety of the public. This was the first occasion on which action was being taken under this Act. Certain bye-laws had been drawn up and advertised in the neighbourhood of the range previous to their being approved by the Board of Trade, and they had unfortunately aroused an agitation in the locality. The noble Lords had made out too strong a case. They said that most valuable and largely-frequented fishing ground was being rendered dangerous. But the range had existed for many years, and if it was so dangerous it would not have been so much frequented. Only one case had been mentioned in which anyone had been injured. It was, no doubt, deplorable that anyone should be wounded, but, owing to the inevitable risk of ricochet shots, it was almost impossible to make a range absolutely safe. Objection was taken to the buoys, but he could not see what injury could be done by marking out the zone of danger in this way. The navigation would not be
  516
  interfered with, and if fishermen chose to fish within the line marked out by the buoys, they could do so at their own risk. Last year 7,000 regular troops used the range for individual firing, and 2,500 for field practice, besides 3,000 at the annual prize meetings. He could assure the noble Lord who had brought forward this matter that the Secretary of State would give every attention to the objections raised in the locality to the bye-laws, which had yet to be approved by the Board of Trade. If it was possible to find another range, the Government would do so; and, if not, they would do their best to make the existing range safe. No butt would be a perfect safeguard, for no butt could stop a ricochet. Every attention would be paid to the objections raised, both to the bye-lays and to the range; but while these objections were still coming in it was obviously impossible for him to make any more distinct promise.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow a quarter past Ten o'clock.