Sitting of 11 April 1889

MR. SPEAKER'S INDISPOSITION.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, owing to the continuance of his indisposition.
Whereupon Mr. Courtney, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table; and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

TOWN HOLDINGS.
Ordered, That the Reports and Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee on Town Holdings in Sessions 1886, 1887, and 1888 be referred to the Select Committee on Town Holdings.—(Mr. Lewis Fry.)
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to the National Debt Redemption Bill, Army (Annual) Bill, Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;—
The House went;—and being returned;—
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to the Army Annual Act, 1889; National Debt Redemption Act, 1889; Drainage and Improvement of Lands Supplemental (Ireland) Act, 1889.

QUESTIONS.

  SCOTLAND—SEVERE SENTENCE FOR HAWKING.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Lord Advocate whether his attention had been drawn to a conviction, by Sheriff Hamilton, in the Edinburgh Sheriff Summary Court, on 9th March, of five boys, charged with having, without leave, hawked news-
  210
  papers for sale on the North British Railway Station; whether three of the boys, who had been previously convicted of similar trespass, were sentenced to six stripes with a birch rod, and the remaining two lads to two stripes; and whether these sentences of flogging for such simple trespass were authorized by law?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): I have inquired into this case, and have ascertained that the facts are as stated by the hon. Member. The offence was the contravention of a byelaw issued under the Act 8 and 9 Vict. c. 33. The proper penalty would have been a fine, but the Act provides that, failing recovery of the fine, imprisonment shall follow. As the boys could not have paid a fine, the presiding Sheriff was anxious to avoid a sentence leading to imprisonment, and therefore ordered whipping. In so doing, however, he overlooked the terms of the Statutes which authorize whipping, for they allow it only as a substitute for a sentence of imprisonment, and not as a substitute for a pecuniary penalty, even although imprisonment may be the consequence of non-payment. I have no doubt that this distinction will be attended to in future.

  WESTERN AUSTRALIA.—FORESHORE RIGHTS AT ALBANY.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELLasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether petitions have been received from inhabitants of the town of Albany, Western Australia, praying that the present and prospective right of access to the foreshore of the harbour may be preserved to them as against threatened encroachments of a railway in course of construction by the Western Australian Land Company; and whether effectual measures have been, or will be taken, to prevent the Company acquiring a monopoly of access to the foreshore of the harbour, and thereby depriving the inhabitants of public rights of high value in the future?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron HENRY DE WORMS, Liverpool, Toxteth): Two Petitions on this subject have been received and are being carefully considered. I am unable to state what instructions the Secretary of State will be

  211
  able to give in the matter; but, as at present anticipated, it will be possible to secure to the inhabitants all reasonable facilities under conditions fair to the Company.

  THE SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT.
  MR. WHITMOREasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, as the anticipated inquiry by the Royal Commission on Civil Service Establishments into the Science and Art Department, and the alleged grievances of the messengers and attendants at the South Kensington Museum had been abandoned, or indefinitely postponed, he will now take steps to remedy their grievances, and to admit them to the benefits of superannuation and sick pay which are enjoyed by all permanent Civil Servants?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): In answer to my hon. Friend, I have to say that these attendants and messengers were engaged and are paid by the hour. They were engaged on the understanding that all payments are for the full value of the services performed, and that no officer has any future claim on the Department. Persons so employed are not permanent Civil Servants of the State, and are not qualified for superannuation on retirement. By the Act of 1887, however, they, in common with all other persons employed on similar conditions in a public Department, become qualified after a service of not less than 15 years for the grant of a gratuity of one week's pay for each year of service. The case of these men has been considered by the Treasury on several occasions, and I regret that I do not feel that I can reverse the decision arrived at by my predecessors.

  DISTRICT COUNCILS BILL.
  MR. HOB HOUSEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he would introduce his District Councils Bill before Easter, in order to give the County Councils full time for the consideration of its provisions before it came on for discussion in this House?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I am afraid I can hold out no expectation that the District Councils Bill will be
  212
  introduced before Easter. We must make much more progress with public business before I can hope to introduce it.

  RAILWAY TERMINAL CHARGES.
  MR. CAINEasked the President of the Board of Trade if the Railway Companies of the United Kingdom had all furnished the information required by a rule of the Board of Trade—namely, that they should "state as far as practicable the existing terminal charges in respect of the several classes of traffic, showing in each case the authority for making the charge;" and, if they had done so, where was the information to be found?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): The statements of the railway companies as to terminal charges are with the statements as to existing maximum rates. The statements are not in every instance combined with the proposed classification and schedule of maximum rates, but are contained in separate documents, which the railway companies did not in the first instance supply to persons applying. A circular, however, as I have already explained, was sent to the companies, and they have now undertaken to supply the supplementary statements.
  MR. TOMLINSONasked what extension of time had been granted?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: An extension of time has been granted to small railway companies worked by other companies.

  ARMY PENSIONS.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary of State for War if he would state the conditions under which the pensions of officers, non-commissioned officers, and rank and file could now be commuted; and whether the limitations of ago and number of years commutation differ in any rank, and in what respect?
  'THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODRICK,): The commutation of officers' pensions is governed by the Pensions Commutation Acts of 1871 and 1872, and by rules issued by the Treasury and by the Secretary of State for War. The amount allowed is fixed by the Commutation Board according to

  213
  tables, and depends upon the officer's age and state of health. No officer is permitted to commute so long as he remains liable for active service; he cannot commute more than half his pension, nor can he reduce his pension below £80 a year. The commutation of the pensions of non-commissioned officers and men is governed by 1st Will. IV., c. 41, and, subject to the recommendations of the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital, is allowed by the Secretary of State for War in cases in which the pensioners desire to emigrate. The amount payable in commutation is fixed by the Act at four years' purchase. Permission to commute in such cases is only granted where a pensioner is upwards of 50 years old and can be medically certified to be in good health. The terms of commutation for non-commissioned officers and men are now under the consideration of the Government, and it is hoped that it may be possible to amend the Statute.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Am I right in inferring that the rate of commutation for officers is at the present moment at least three and a-half times that which it is for the men?
  *MR. BRODRICK: I cannot say what the exact amount is, but the matter is under consideration with a view to amending the terms.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Is it under consideration in view of the great inequality of the rate between privates and officers?
  *MR. BRODRICK: It is under consideration with a view to improving the position of privates in the terms of commutation.

  THE METROPOLITAN POLICE ACT.
  MR. LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how often the powers of compulsorily taking land and houses for police stations and offices under "The Metropolitan Police Act, 1886," had been exercised; and whether the police buildings in the Metropolitan Police District were erected on freehold or leasehold tenure?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I am informed by the Receiver of Police that compulsory powers have been exercised in six cases, and four cases are at present pending. The freehold properties
  214
  now number 121. There are 93 either held on leases or annual tenancies.

  SCOTCH SALMON FISHERIES.
  SIR EDWARD GREYasked the Lord Advocate if he could now say definitely whether the Government would introduce a Bill dealing with Scotch Salmon Fisheries this Session?
  *MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Owing to the other legislative engagements of the Government, regarding Scotland, made in this House, the Government are not in a position to find time this Session for a Salmon Fisheries Bill.

  NEWFOUNDLAND—PROTECTION TO FISHERMEN.
  DR. TANNERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any special instructions had been given to protect the Newfoundland fishermen on the western coast of that island; and whether any specific assurance had been sought from the French Admiral commanding in those waters that the Newfoundland fishermen should not have their nets destroyed, as has recently been done?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The general instructions issued to the British naval officers sufficiently meet the objects indicated in the first part of the hon. Member's question. In reply to the second part of the question, I have to say that no complaint has recently been made to Her Majesty's Government about the destruction of British nets by order of French naval officers; but if any well-founded complaint should be made of the improper interference by the French with British fishermen, it will form the subject of representations to the French Government, with the object of preventing such interference in future.

  MILITIA SUBALTERNS.
  MR. I. DONAL SULLIVANasked the Secretary of State for War whether the examination for Militia Subalterns for entrance into the Regular Army was held on 13th and 14th March; whether there were only about 200 candidates; whether four papers only were set, one in law, one in fortification, one in tactics, one in topography, there being four examiners, one in each subject; and if he will inquire

  215
  into the cause of the delay in making known the result?
  MR. BRODRICK: The facts are as stated by the hon. Member. The result of the examination will be communicated to candidates to-day and published as soon as the list is printed. This being a strictly competitive examination, it was necessary to give the examiners sufficient time to do justice to the candidates. I may add that the result of this examination has rarely been published before the 15th of April.

  THE PUBLIC EXECUTIONER.
  SIR EDMUND LECHMEREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he had received any presentments made to Her Majesty's Judges by grand juries of counties and cities during the recent assizes, in reference to the expediency of placing the public executioner under the control of the Home Office; whether he had received copies of resolutions adopted by County Magistrates at the last Epiphany Quarter Sessions on the same subject; whether he would enumerate the counties and cities from which such presentments and resolutions have been received; and, whether he would, at the same time, communicate to the House the opinions, if any, conveyed to him by Her Majesty's Judges thereon?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The answer to the first two paragraphs is in the affirmative. I have received such presentments from the counties of Surrey, Dorset, Westmoreland, Leicester, Worcester, Lincoln, Gloucester, Durham, Devon, Nottingham, York, Monmouth, Hereford, Derby, Salop, and Glamorgan. I have received resolutions of magistrates from the counties of Worcester and Monmouth. These presentments were forwarded to me without any expression of opinion by the learned Judges, except in the case of the Lord Chief Justice, who thought the suggested change a very right and rational one, and of Mr. Justice Denman, who thought that the carrying out of executions had better not be in the hands of the Government.

  PRISON RULES.
  MR. SUMMERSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take such
  216
  steps as may be necessary to bring about the extension to England and Scotland of the modifications in the Prison Rules which have been proposed by the Prisons Board in Ireland and sanctioned by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Legislation will be necessary in order to extend to England and Scotland the modifications of Prison Rules which have been proposed for Ireland. Before proposing any such legislation to the House, I shall await the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into this subject instituted by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland.

  THE AUXILIARY FORCES.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEasked the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the fact that officers of the Auxiliary Forces have been invited to go up for examination in subjects obligatory on officers of the Regular Forces—namely, tactics, fortification, reconnaissance, and law, there would be any objection to such officers as accepted the invitation being allowed to attend the garrison classes, in the same way as officers of the Auxiliary Forces are allowed to be attached to Line Regiments, in order to learn drill and interior economy?
  MR. BRODRICK: The number of officers who can attend a garrison class is limited to the number that can be efficiently instructed by the Staff Officer appointed for that purpose. Preference must, of course, be given to Regular Officers; but when there are not enough Regular Officers to fill a class there will be no objection to the vacancies being filled by officers of the Auxiliary Forces.

  MORRIS'S TUBES.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he could give the names of the Militia battalions who used Morris's tubes at their last training; can he state why, by Army Order 22 of January 1889, p. 36, the issue of Morris's tubes to the Militia has been restricted to "a limited number of battalions," and on what principle the particular battalions are selected for the issue of Morris's tubes; are the colonels of the Militia battalions to whom the tubes are issued ordered to use them, or is their use optional; have

  217
  any, and, if so, what alterations been made in the distribution of the prize money for shooting in the Militia, as was suggested by him in reply to a question on this subject put to him last Session; and whether he will consent to give a Return showing the number of recruits who fired their recruit's course only, and the number of recruits who fired both their recruit's and their trained man's course, and the names of the battalions in which this occurred?
  MR. BRODRICK: The 3rd Battalion Essex Regiment, and the 3rd Battalion King's Own Scottish Borderers used the Morris tubes during the last training; and the 3rd and 5th Battalions of the Royal Fusiliers and the 4th Battalion of the Oxfordshire Regiment used them for the training of their recruits. The issue was restricted to such stations as were provided with galleries for the use of the Morris tube; where issued the use of the tube is obligatory. Alterations have been made in the distribution of the prize money for good shooting in the Militia, by reducing the value of the prizes given to the best shots of each battalion and each company, and giving a prize of 5s. to the best shot of each section. The revised Annual Musketry Return, which will be rendered by the Militia this year, will give the particulars as to the musketry practice of recruits asked for by my hon. Friend.
  MR. ISAACSON: Is it not the fact that the use of Morris's tubes has been found to be a step in the direction of economy, and will the Secretary of State do everything in his power to encourage the use of them?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Secretary of State is quite willing to encourage the use of Morris's tubes where open ranges cannot be found, with a view to improving the shooting of the Army.

  IRELAND—COMMISSION ON PRISON TREATMENT.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now communicate the names of the Commissioners to inquire into prison treatment, and the terms of the directions upon which they are to act; whether he will state what operation the new rules are intended to have, and what instructions have been or are to be given to the prison officers to guide them
  218
  in the administration of these rules; and whether any rule will be framed to modify the existing prison regulations in regard to the obligation to perform certain menial tasks?
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I greatly regret that I cannot, even yet, give a full answer to the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the names of the Commissioners; but I have the satisfaction of being able to announce that just before coming to the House I heard that Lord Aberdare has accepted the Chairmanship. The general object of the new rules is to revert to the original intentions of Parliament with regard to prison dress and hair clipping, and to restrict compulsion on these points to eases where sanitary considerations make their imposition necessary or desirable. No distinction will be made between different classes of offences, nor will any change be made in that part of prison discipline which is intended to be punitive in its effects. With regard to the last paragraph, I understand that under the existing law any non-hard labour prisoner who is prepared to pay the cost of his own food may avoid the work to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
  MR. SEXTONasked what the number of the contemplated Commissioners would be?
  *MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the Commissioners would consist of five Members, Lord Aberdare being Chairman, and there being three Representatives of the English, Scotch, and Irish Prisons Board. The fifth Member had not yet been chosen.
  MR. FLYNN: The right hon. Gentleman said in answer to a question from me that the Commission would consist of others besides Members of the Prison Boards.
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What the hon. Member asked me was whether nobody, other than those connected with the Irish Prisons Department, would be selected, and, as I said in reply, that has not been the case. There will only be one Representative of the Irish Prisons Department.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the Commission consist of persons interested in carrying out the Prison Rules?
  *MR. A, J. BALFOUR: It will be, necessary to have official knowledge on the Commission.

  MR. E. HARRINGTON, M.P.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the "remission of hard labour" by the Lord Lieutenant, in the case of Mr. Edward Harrington, M.P., has made no change in his occupation, and has deprived him of four ounces of bread and half a pint of milk daily?
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is a change in Mr. Harrington's diet, though not to the extent stated in the question. An average of 3 1–7oz. bread, 4–7oz. potatoes, and ¼ pint of milk is the real amount. The benefit to Mr. Harrington will not accrue until the work of preparing his defence terminates, which will, I presume, he soon. The prison doctor will, of course, see that Mr. Harrington has all the nourishment necessary for health.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: How long did Mr. Harrington undergo the sentence of hard labour?
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It was decided that three months of the six months' hard labour to which Mr. E. Harrington was sentenced should be remitted.

  EVICTIONS IN DONEGAL.
  MR. MAC NEILLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in the Gweedore and Claughanely districts of the county of Donegal, the & trees obtained by landlords for ejectment for non-payment of rent last Saturday, together with the decrees previously obtained, bring up the total number of families affected to 121, and that, since last autumn, the great majority of these families, including all the families on the townlands of Glashercoo and Curransport, on the Olpherts estate, have been subsisting on Indian meal; whether representations have reached him that the seed potatoes are not only deficient in quantity to crop the lands, but are unusually small; and whether the Government will employ the forces of the Crown to evict the people of these districts from their houses, or take means to save them from death by starvation?
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary authorities report that the
  220
  decrees obtained by landlords in the Gweedore and Claughanely districts for ejectments for non-payment of rent amount to a total of 96. It is not the case that the great majority of these families, including all the families on the townlands of Glashercoo and Curransport, have been subsisting on Indian meal since last autumn. Some of the poorer doubtless have. Their families usually use Indian meal from February and March till the potato crop is ready for use. They commenced to use the meal sooner this year, owing to the smaller supply of potatoes. The local markets are well stocked with seed potatoes varying from 4d. to 6d. a stone. The potatoes of last year were small. There is no prospect of starvation, so far as can be ascertained; nor are there likely to be any cases of individual distress which could not be at once dealt with under the ordinary Poor Law.
  MR. MAC NEILL: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last paragraph of the question. Will the forces of the Crown be employed in carrying out these evictions?
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall in this, as in every other case, use the forces of the Crown in support of the officers of the law.
  MR. SEXTON: I have received a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for North Monaghan (Mr. P. O'Brien) in which he says—
  "Seven families have been evicted without resistance. There were no potatoes or any other food found in any of the houses. In one case the door was smashed in without a warrant. A woman with a baby in her arms was struck in the face by an emergency man. Wood also struck the woman in my presence. Inspector Law and a force of police brought up a battering ram from Letterkenny. The evictions are proceeding."
  May I ask if this battering ram was brought up by the police for the purpose of self-defence?
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the battering ram was brought up at all, it was brought up for the purpose of self-defence.
  MR. MAC NEILL: As this battering ram is provided out of the public funds voted by Parliament, will the right hon. Gentleman lay a model of it on the Table for the information of the House?
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!

  ZULULAND— SENTENCE OF FLOGGING.
  MR. WALTER M'LARENasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial Office had received any report from Sir A. Havelock respecting the case of a Zululand Magistrate who, in December last, inflicted the punishment of 25 lashes in three instances upon Zulus for the offence of continuing to plant in their maize gardens after the gardens had been given to Zibabu, and whose action in flogging these men the Resident Commissioner was reluctantly compelled to pronounce illegal; and whether the offending Magistrate had been still left in authority in Zululand?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: This case was reported on the 17th January by the Governor, who stated that he was then making arrangements for relieving the Magistrate in question, who was acting temporarily in the absence of the regular Magistrate. There is no ground for the allegation that the Resident Commissioner acted with reluctance; the records of the case show that he dealt with the matter promptly and on his own initiative.

  THE SUFFRAGAN BISHOP OF LONDON.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Bishop of Marlborough, Suffragan to the Bishop of London, and holding preferment to the value of £1,400 per annum in the diocese of London, also draws £1,000 per annum as Canon of Exeter Cathedral, and refuses to give up the latter preferment notwithstanding an engagement to that effect; whether the Bishop of Marlborough's duties, as Canon of Exeter, are only discharged by deputy; and whether this proceeding, by which funds applicable to the work of the diocese of Exeter are retained by a gentleman whose ministrations have been retained for the diocese of London, is a contravention of the Pluralities Act?
  *MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Bishop of Marlborough that he has resigned the Canonry of Exeter. The Bishop of London informs me that, by 26 Henry VIII., c. 14, the only Act
  222
  which regulates the appointment, duties, and privileges of suffragan bishops, a suffragan is empowered to hold two benefices, and it is clear that it was intended that provision for the payment of a suffragan should be made in this way. It is further declared that—
  "Residence of the suffragan in the diocese where he is commissioned shall serve him for his residence as sufficiently as if he were resident in any other his benefice."
  The Bishop of Marlborough is, therefore, legally entitled to hold both his rectory in London and his canonry in Exeter. It is not the fact that the Bishop made any engagement to resign his canonry.
  SEALE-HAYNE: Is it proper that the funds of one diocese should be applied to work done in another?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have given the hon. Member the words of the Statute which apply to the matter.

  THE SHERIFF CLERK OF FORFARSHIRE.
  MR. CALDWELLasked the Lord Advocate whether it is the fact that by the conditions of his appointment the Chief Clerk for Forfarshire, Mr. Thomas Congleton, is obliged to devote his whole time to the duties of Sheriff Clerk; whether, in point of fact, he also acts as Clerk to the Commissioners of the Burgh of Newport; whether he recently acted as Presiding Officer at the election of Commissioners for that burgh; and whether the performance of these outside duties are compatible with the terms of Mr. Congleton's appointment.
  *MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Until I received notice of the question of the hon. Member, I was not aware of the fact that Mr. Congleton acted as Clerk to the Newport Police Commissioners. I have satisfied myself that he has only done so through a misunderstanding of the terms of his appointment, which prohibit him from holding any other office of emolument, though it does not specify that he is to give his whole time to the office, as is stated in the question. On being made aware that the holding of this office is not compatible with the terms of his appointment as Sheriff Clerk, Mr. Congleton at onceintimated his intention of giving up the office of Clerk to the Commissioners of Newport.

  IRELAND-SUB-COMMISSIONERS UNDER THE LAND ACT.
  MR. MATTHEW KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if any sitting of Sub-Commissioners under the Land Law (Ireland) Act has been held for the barony of Clogher, county Tyrone, since the passage of the Land Act of 1887; and, if not, if he could state the reason.
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners inform me that the sittings of the Sub-Commissioners are not arranged according to baronies. A sub-commission sat for hearing cases from the Poor Law Union of Clogher, in the County Tyrone, in May last. There will be another sitting towards the end of this or the beginning of next month.

  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACT.
  MR. ARTHUR ELLIOTasked the President of the Board of Trade where, and by whom, objections lodged to revised classification and rates proposed by railway companies under "The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888," are to be heard.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid the objections lodged would in ordinary course be heard in London, at the office of the Board of Trade, but he proposed to make arrangements providing that where necessary they should be heard in Edinburgh and Dublin.

  THE TONNAGE BILL.
  MR. GOURLAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he intends withdrawing the Tonnage Bill now before the House, and introduce during the current Session a Bill dealing with the whole question of the tonnage measurement of the Mercantile Marine?
  *SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: No, Sir.

  INERNATIONAL LABOUR CONGRESS
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Her Majesty's Government has now definitely decided to take steps to have this country represented at the International Congress on labour questions convened by the Swiss Federal Council at Geneva?
  *MR. MATTHEWS: No decision has yet been arrived at.

  POSTMASTERS.
  MR. PATRICK JOSEPH O'BRIENasked the Postmaster General if it was his intention to place postmasters on the same footing as all the other officers in the Post Office as regards classification to annual increment; and, if not, would he state the reason for refusing the concession?
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): The circumstances of the various post offices differ so materially that I do not think it would be practicable, from an administrative point of view, to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member. Each case must, I think, necessarily be dealt with upon its own merits.

  VOLUNTEER CAPITATION GRANTS.
  MR. COBBasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Colonel commanding the 2nd Volunteer Battalion Royal Warwickshire Regiment was acting with the approval of the War Office by making it known in the battalion some months ago that for the future the Capitation Grant earned by the several detachments would be placed at the disposal of the battalion as a whole, and not of the detachments earning the grant, as heretofore, and by since acting in incurring expenditure and otherwise, as if such alteration would be carried, out; whether such alteration is in opposition to Rule 18 of the Battalion Rules, 1880; whether he is aware that the action of the Commanding Officer has produced great dissatisfaction among the members of the Rugby Town Company; whether he is aware that in consequence of the opposition to such action of the officer commanding the Rugby detachment the Colonel wrote to him such a letter as caused him to resign his commission; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the matter, with a view of taking steps to continue to each detachment the right of control over the Capitation Grant earned by it?
  MR. BRODRICK: The commanding officer of the 2nd Volunteer Battalion of the Royal Warwickshire Regiment is acting under the General Volunteer

  225
  Regulations in administering the Capitation Grant by a regimental financial committee; but by the rules of the battalion, as approved by the War Office, the amount earned by each company is handed over to the Captain, to be expended on the company under the supervision of the Colonel and the regimental finance committee. Any other distribution of the money earned would not be in accordance with the approved Corps Rules. Nothing is known at the War Office of the resignation of either of the two Captains of the Rugby companies. The Secretary of State is not prepared to give absolute control of the expenditure to Captains of companies. Whatever is spent must be subject to the approval of the commanding officer, to whom the Captains are responsible.

  SAMOA.
  MR. WILLIAM M'ARTHUR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to a resolution passed by the Australasian Federal Council, in which they express their anxiety at the course of events in Samoa, and impress upon Her Majesty's Government the extreme importance to British and Australian interests of maintaining such treaties as exist, or concluding additional treaties guaranteeing the independence of the Samoan and Tongan groups; and, whether he is yet prepared to state to the House the names of the English Commissioners to the Berlin Conference on Samoan Affairs?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): The Resolution in question was communicated to Her Majesty's Government. The Council also asked to be supplied with copies of existing Treaties bearing on the subject, which was done, and the Colonial Governments were assured that Her Majesty's Government were fully sensible of the importance of the Imperial and Colonial interests involved in the groups of Islands referred to. I am not yet in a position to state the names of the British Commissioners to the forth—coming Conference.

  IRELAND-EVICTIONS IN DONEGAL.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord
  226
  Lieutenant of Ireland how many families are affected by the impending evictions on the Olphert estate in the county Donegal; whether he is aware that these families are in such extremity of distress that they are at present being maintained by means of a public charitable fund administered by the Bishop of Raphoe; whether he has caused any inquiry to be made as to the equity of these evictions; whether he is willing to use his influence with the landlord to promote an arbitration; and when it is proposed to carry out the evictions?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that the number of evictions on the Olphert estate to be forthwith carried out is 23, though the number of decrees is 66. I am informed that there is a fund for supporting the tenants driven out of their holdings through the Plan of Campaign in January. I believe that the tenants have paid their rents into the war chest; that if the Plan were abandoned a settlement might easily be come to with the landlord; and that it is the promoters of the Plan, and they alone, who are responsible for the misery which has been or which may be inflicted in the district.
  MR. SEXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the landlord should not follow the precedent set in the case of the Mandeville estate, and that he should not enter into negotiations which may lead to a settlement without first insisting on the abandonment of the Plan of Campaign which would place the tenants at the mercy of the landlord?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not for me to say what the tenants ought to do. If they would make a reasonable offer there would be no difficulty in coming to a settlement. I think the Plan of Campaign now stands in the way of a settlement, as it holds the rents.
  MR. SEXTON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in every case in which settlements have been come to, the Plan of Campaign promoters have immediately released the rents?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know that that proposition is perfectly correct. I have heard of cases in which the tenants have asked, but failed to get their money back. But my point is that unless the promoters of the Plan of Campaign give their assent to the arrangement which the tenants may be

  227
  willing to enter into, the tenants cannot make it, or else they will lose their money.
  MR. SEXTON: But if the promoters of the Plan of Campaign indicate their readiness to hand over the money from what is called the "war chest" in the event of a settlement, what difficulty is there in taking steps to secure an agreement?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am perfectly certain that the landlord is desirous of making a settlement on fair terms, but the negotiations should be conducted with him and not with me.

  GOLD COAST—THE MURDER OF MR. DALRYMPLE.
  SIR ROBERT FOWLER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government has received from the jurors at Accra, before whom the Tavieve Chief, Bella Cobina, and Napad Seheb were tried and acquitted last August, on a charge of inciting, moving, and procuring certain persons unknown to murder Assistant Inspector Dalrymple, at Tavieve, in the previous May, a memorial, pointing out that, in the Gold Coast Government Gazette, the Governor is reported as having stated that these two prisoners, and a third, Akoto Mamlay,
  "had been acquitted of the charges laid against them, of being connected with the murders of Mr. Dalrymple and the Chavis, and that this had taken place in spite of the evidence, in the opinion of the Queen's Advocate;"
  whether, before sanctioning the Ordinance of the Legislative Council of the Gold Coast, under which the three persons named are now imprisoned at Elmina Castle, Her Majesty's Government had access to the Minutes of the trial of last August, in which two of the prisoners were concerned, and, as regards the third prisoner, Akoto Mamlay, whether the charges against her have ever been submitted to a Court of Law; and, whether the Government will lay before Parliament the Minutes of the trial of last August, the Governor's Report thereon, and any other correspondence that has taken place with reference to these affairs?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: In answer to my hon. Friend I have to say that e copy of the memorial—which has been
  228
  sent through the Governor—has been received direct from the Foreman of the Jury, but no action has been taken upon it pending its receipt from the Governor with his report, which may be shortly expected. In reply to the second question, when the Ordinance was sanctioned Her Majesty's Government were aware that the two first named prisoners had been acquitted of being accessories before the fact to the murder of Mr. Dalrymple, and that, in the face of that acquittal, the indictment against the three prisoners for the murder of the Chiavis was not proceeded with. As I stated in reply to the hon. Member for the St. Austell division on the 8th instant, "it was considered necessary for the public safety that these persons should not be allowed to return to Tavieve," and the Ordinance providing for their detention as political prisoners was therefore passed and sanctioned. Under the circumstances there would be no advantage in presenting the papers to Parliament, and their publication in the Colony is undesirable. I shall, however, be glad to give information on any particular point to my hon. Friend if he desires it.

  INDIA—THE CRAWFORD CASE.
  MR. J. M. MACLEANI wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if it is proposed to publish the decision in the Crawford ease simultaneously in England and in India?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): The despatch containing the decision of the Secretary of State in Council on the Crawford case, being due in Bombay on the 15th inst., will be laid on the Table on Tuesday next, together with other papers, including the report of the Commission.

  BARRY LINKS ARTILLERY RANGE.
  DR. CAMERONfor Mr. BARCLAY: I beg, to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Government has been able to secure the Barry Links for artillery practice?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Government has not yet been able to secure the Barry Links for artillery practice, but I am informed that an arrangement has. been made with Lord Dalhousie's tutors,

  229
  by which the Scottish National Artillery Association will be permitted to hold their meeting on Barry Links this year.

  HER MAJESTY'S LEGATION AT BELGRADE.
  MR. LEGH: I have to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is intended to convert Her Majesty's Legation at Belgrade into a Consulate General; and, if so, for what reason?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: No, Sir. There is no such intention as that stated in the question.

  WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE BILL.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: I wish, Sir, to ask the honourable Member for Hanley whether he intends to proceed with the Women's Suffrage Bill this Session; and, if so, whether he will endeavour to secure a day for its discussion, or engage not to take it except at a time when it may be fully debated?
  MR. WOODALL: I have to thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving me private notice of this question. The House is aware that, availing myself of the position obtained in the ballot, I put down the Women's Suffrage Bill for Second Reading on Wednesday next. The Leader of the the House, in the exercise of his discretion, has intimated his intention to follow the general usage in regard to the Easter Holidays, rather than to act upon the precedent he himself established so recently as 1887. I do not propose to challenge this decision by putting the House to the trouble of a division on the Motion for Adjournment. And I have no hesitation in giving the assurance asked for by the hon. Member, whose solicitude in regard to the Bill has been evidenced by his vigilant and persistent hostility. There is, however, no chance of making any further progress with the question this Session in what remains of private Members' time. But after the recent declaration of the Prime Minister in favour of the enfranchisement of women, I am not without hope that the Government will endeavour to give effect to the opinion of Lord Salisbury by affording me some facilities for taking the opinion of the House. I propose, therefore, to defer the withdrawal
  230
  of the Bill until I am assured that such an expectation is not likely to be realized.

  CHANNEL ISLANDS-THE CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1885.
  MR. WALTER M'LAREN: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1855 has been adopted in the Channel Islands; and, if not, what are the reasons which have prevented its adoption?
  MR. MATTHEWS: No, Sir; this Act has not been adopted in the Channel Islands. The Act does not in terms apply to these islands. In Guernsey the Governor in 1885 called the attention of the Royal Court to the Act, and a Committee was appointed to consider it, but has not as yet reported. The Governor of Jersey does not inform me of the reasons which have delayed or prevented its adoption in that island.

  IRELAND—THE RATHFARNHAM MANSLAUGHTER CASE.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence in the case of Charles Freckle-ton, an emergency man and gamekeeper, tried in Dublin on Friday and Saturday of last week for murder, from which it appears that Freckleton, in a public house at Rathfarnham, in the county of Dublin, deliberately fired three shots at three different persons in succession, killing one man on the spot, and wounding one young girl so seriously that for several weeks her life was despaired of; whether he has considered the observations of the presiding Judge, Mr. Justice Murphy, in which he expressed the opinion that the crime of Freckleton was both unprovoked and without any justification whatsoever, and declared "that there was no case in the books that would suggest that in a case of this kind the Judge should suggest that the jury should reduce the crime from murder to manslaughter; "whether the jury found Freckleton guilty, not of murder, but of manslaughter; whether it is a fact that, in the empannelling of this jury, the representatives of the Crown did not order any jurors to stand aside, while the prisoner challenged 20 jurors, all but four of whom were

  231
  Catholics, with the result that all the 12 jurors sworn were Protestant landlords or persons connected with the landlord class; and if these allegations are well founded, whether he intends to take any notice of the action of the Crown officials in this case?
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that the prisoner, Charles Freckleton, was not an emergency man. He was brought over from Scotland to act as a gamekeeper for Mr. Guinness, of zibradden, in the County of Dublin, in whose employment he was as such gamekeeper when the offence was committed. The presiding judge made in effect the observations mentioned in the question, and he left it to the jury to determine whether the prisoner was guilty of murder or manslaughter, and they found a verdict of manslaughter, and he was sentenced to penal servitude for life. It is a fact that the representatives of the Crown did not ask any juror to stand aside while the prisoner challenged 20 jurors; but the religion of those challenged cannot be given. It is not known what was the religion of the 12 jurors sworn to try the prisoner; but their occupations were as follows:— 1 retired officer; 1 bookseller; 1 jeweller; 1 carrier; 2 described as gentlemen; 1 manufacturer's agent; 2 bank clerks; 2 commercial clerks; and 1 farmer.
  MR. CLANCY: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that the murdered man was a Catholic, that the murderer was a Protestant, and that the jury was composed exclusively of Protestants.
  A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid that I have no information on that subject.
  MR. CLANCY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the murdered man has left a widow and three children in destitute condition, and will he consider the propriety—
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order. That does not arise out of the question on the paper.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to give notice that, on the Estimates, I will call attention to this and other instances of flagrant partizanship in the administration of the Criminal Law in Ireland.

  EVICTIONS IN COUNTY WICKLOW.
  MR. BYRNE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord
  232
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Richard Cullen, a leasehold tenant on the estate of Charles Frizelle, Castlekevin, county of Wicklow, who applied to the Land Commission to fix a fair rent immediately after the passing of "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887," but has never been able to get his case heard; whether he is aware that in September last he was served with an eviction notice; that his rent was £19 14s. 4d. a-year, while the Government valuation of his farm was only £12 10s.; that in 1885 the then agent of the estate accepted, in respect of the last gale of that year, a rent equal to the valuation; and that a newly-appointed agent, named M'Dougall, was offered last October by Cullen one and a-half year's rent, computed at the valuation, but refused the offer; and, if these allegations are well founded, whether the Government are prepared to lend the forces of the Crown for the eviction of Cullen, or whether they intend to propose any legislation to prevent evictions from similar causes in the future?
  MR. CHANCE: Arising out of this, may I ask the Solicitor General for Ireland whether it is not the fact that the procedure for obtaining an instalment order is exceedingly expensive?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (MR. MADDEN,): The Land Commissioners inform me that it is the case that Cullen served an originating notice, as stated in the first paragraph. I have not received a reply in regard to the details in the second paragraph. The tenant had full power to apply, under the Act of 1881, to the Court to stay the proceedings in ejectment, and also under the Act of 1887, to likewise stay the proceedings, pending the hearing of his application to have a fair rent fixed, and to have the arrears of rent declared payable by instalments spread over a given period, should the Court consider the circumstances of the case required it.
  MR. MADDEN: I think it better notice should he given of this question.
  MR. CHANCE: Then I must put the question to the Chief Secretary as it arises out of his answer.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should point out that quite apart from the Act of 1887

  233
  it can be done under the Act of 1881 without expense.
  MR. CHANCE: But have not the superior Courts practically refused to exercise any jurisdiction under the Act of 1881?
  MR. McCARTAN: On what part of the Act of 1881 does the right hon. Gentleman rely?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not the Act with me, but if the question is put on the Paper I will answer it.

  THE LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when a Sub-Commission will sit again in the County of Dublin for the purpose of hearing land cases from that district?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners inform me that a Sub-Commission will commence its sittings for the County of Dubiin towards the end of next month.

  POST OFFICE DISCIPLINE.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the following facts have been brought under his notice—namely, that on Wednesday night, 3rd April, a man on the midnight duty, named Jenkins, when examining his receipt slips for letters, found one already stamped with his number stamp, which circumstance he duly reported. He and a sorter named Broome were summoned before the Sub-Controller, Mr. Finch, when the Assistant Controller, Mr. Saunderson, in Mr. Finch's presence, declared his belief that the affair "was a huge joke," perpetrated in order to keep up the excitement respecting a petition which had been submitted for the disuse of the number stamp instrument; whether it is the fact that this instrument has to be used by the employés for signing the registered letters in lieu of the ordinary method by writing, and that the person to whom such instrument is entrusted is responsible for whatever use is made of the instrument, even if it should be stolen or otherwise used without his knowledge or consent; whether it is the fact that several cases have occurred of such instrument having been stolen, and that, in consequence of the danger of such theft or other misuse, and the heavy
  234
  liability lying upon the employés in such case, petitions have been preferred in favour of the abolition of the instrument in question; and whether he will call upon the Assistant Controller to explain his action in the matter?
  MR. RAIKES: I have not as yet completed my inquiry into the circumstances alluded to by the hon. Member, but I may say that if the irregularity, which was undoubtedly committed by some one, was committed from any other motive than thoughtless mischief, the case will certainly assume a more serious aspect.

  CIVIL SERVICE WRITERS.
  MR. JOHN KELLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the fact, that in the early part of last year, a number of Civil Service writers serving in the Outdoor Department of Her Majesty's Customs were recommended for promotion under the Treasury Minute of December 1886; whether these writers were afterwards transferred to the Statistical Department of Her Majesty's Customs to meet the exigencies of the service; whether, on the completion of the work there, they have been informed that their services are no longer required; and, whether, in consideration of the long services, averaging 13 years, of these men, he will take steps to retain them in the service of Her Majesty's Customs, and give effect to the recommendation made on their behalf by the head of the department?
  *MR. JACKSON: The copyists referred to by my hon. Friend were not recommended for promotion to the lower division by the Commissioners of Custom; they wore transferred to the Statistical Department as' stated in the question. The services of some of them are no longer required in the Statistical Office, and the copyists in question will therefore be returned to the Civil Service Commission for employment in other offices. As other arrangements have been made for carrying on the work in the Out-door Department on which these copyists were formerly employed, there is no necessity for retaining them in the Customs service.

  H.M.S. VICTORIA.
  MR. JOICEYasked the First Lord of the Ad-

  235
  miralty if it be true that considerable alterations have been made in the officers' quarters in the ironclad Victoria since she was delivered by the contractors; and, if so, what amount has been expended in these alterations, and why they were necessary?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEO. HAMILTON,): After it had been determined to employ the Victoria as the flagship on the Mediterranean station, and after the admiral who will command that station had been selected, the position of the captain's, commander's, secretary's, and other cabins was rearranged, and some additional cabins were built, it being thought desirable to accommodate the captain and commander on the weather deck. The cost, including all the consequent subordinate changes, will be about £1,100.

  THE NAVAL MANŒUVRES.
  MR. JOICEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Naval Manœuvres will take place this year; and, if so, when?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: It is intended that the Naval Manœuvres shall take place again this year, but the actual date of their commencement has not yet been fixed.

  IRELAND—PROSECUTION OF MR. CONLAN.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: I wish to ask Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland whether he can cite the terms of the notices, for publishing which Mr. Conlan, proprietor of the Carlow Nationalist, is now in prison?
  MR. MADDEN: It appears from the report of the proceedings in Mr. Conlan's case that the following passages, among others, were relied on on the part of the prosecution:—The Chairman said he would turn to the subject of the coming evictions—
  " I ask how many Neill Doogans will there be on the estate; will the tenants barricade their houses? Of course it means six months' imprisonment, but one house defended as Doogan's or O'Donnell's is worth more to the cause than the quiet eviction of 5,000 people. There was a mistake in the policy carried out at the former eviction here, and the people that went out may be open to the taunt that they did nothing themselves. Mr. Moore: They went
  236
  as far as they were asked to go. The Chairman; Exactly; though, as I said before, it was, great mistake to go out so quietly."
  Again, the Chairman—
  "referred to the fact of the children from the square and the locality around associating with he emergency children, and said it was a shame."
  The Chairman also referred to the fact of the—
  "Campaigners, or a good many of them, dealing in the one shop with the emergency men; it was monstrous that after eight years of agitation and speech-making people would not have spirit enough to act from their own sense of right. If their leaders were cognizant of the fact that Campaigners and emergency men Stood shoulder to shoulder in Mrs. Evan's shop they would simply cut off their supplies, and very justly."
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: This is a very grave matter, and I must, Sir, with your permission, press it a little.. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman recollect that on Friday week he told the House Mr. Conlan was not imprisoned for publishing the proceedings of an unsuppressed branch of the National League but for publishing an incitement to break the law, and that last Thursday he told the House he was imprisoned for publishing notices, the character of which he did not define. Are we now to understand if the suggestion implied in my original question was correct, and that Mr. Conlan was imprisoned for publishing a speech made by another person at the usual fortnightly meeting of an unsuppressed branch of the League, the report having been published as an ordinary item. of news, and with the discharge of Mr. Conlan's duty as a public journalist?
  *MR. MADDEN: I stated correctly on a former occasion that Mr. Con Ian was ordered to find sureties to keep the peace for certain publications which in the summonses were called notices, and which the Magistrates held amounted to an incitement to break the law.
  MR. CLANCY: Did not the hon. and. learned Gentleman say Mr. Conlan was imprisoned for publishing, not only the report of the meeting, but also the notices?
  *MR. MADDEN: I said that these notices were embodied in the report, but that did not make them legal.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREWas the proceeding under the Statute of Edward III.?
  *MR. MADDEN: The summons was apparently founded on the statute referred to; but, as I have already pointed out the Magistrates have jurisdiction in such a case under the Commission of the Peace, and I believe their order was made in virtue of that jurisdiction.

  THE MARITIME CONFERENCE.
  MR. CHANNINGasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position of the communications with the United States Government as to the proposed International Maritime Conference; and, whether, having regard to the disastrous frequency of maritime collisions in the past year, and to the fact that the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Trade have sent in their Report as to alterations in the International Signal Code, Her Majesty's Government will make representations to the United States Government, and, if necessary, to other Governments, with a view of holding the Maritime Conference at the earliest possible moment?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: We have been informed by the United States Charge a' Affaires that the Maritime Conference will meet on the 16th of October, and that the programme is being drawn up by the United States Delegates. It will, when received, be considered by Her Majesty's Government. It would, therefore, be premature to present Papers to Parliament.
  MR. F. A. CHANNING: May I ask whether in the present position of the negotiations, it would be possible for the Government to suggest on the part of this country any further subject for consideration?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: Certainly, Sir. As soon as the programme is received, Her Majesty's Government can offer any suggestions which may seem desirable.

  SIGNALLING AT SEA.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Interim Report of the Committee appointed in 1887 to consider the question of Signalling at sea?
  *SIR. MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: Yes, Sir.

  THE JUBILEE REVIEW.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the expenditure of £1,361 for illuminating the Fleet at the Jubilee Review was incurred by the Admiralty without authority; whether the Admiralty subsequently applied to the Treasury to approve the expenditure; and whether the Treasury declined to assume any responsibility for
  it?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The facts are as represented in the question of the hon. Member. Full particulars will be found in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the Navy Appropriation Account for the year 1887–88. As the official correspondence on the subject has come in the ordinary course under the review of the Public Accounts Committee, any explanation now of the circumstances which led the Admiralty to incur this expenditure would be out of place.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Lord Knutsford has expressed his approval of a proposed Customs Union between the Cape, Natal, and the Orange Free State, under which it is provided that Natal sugar shall be charged in the other two States with a duty of 6s. 3d. per cwt., while all other sugar imported into the Union shall be charged 12s. 6d. per cwt.; whether this arrangement is inconsistent with Article 4 of the Sugar Convention, which provides that "Her Britannic Majesty's Government agree not to impose differential duties on cane or beet sugar imported from countries, provinces beyond the seas, Colonies, or foreign possessions taking part in the Convention"; and, does the Colonial Office intend to take any steps to reconcile the Sugar Convention with the Customs Union?
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: The proposed South African Customs Union is between the Cape Colony and the Orange Free State only, Natal, as we now understand, having refused to join it; and the provision in the Bill establishing the Customs Union—where by Natal sugar would have received differential treatment in the manner stated in the question—is to be omitted. It is not

  239
  necessary, therefore, to consider whether the Customs Union, in its earlier form, would have been inconsistent with Article 4 of the Sugar Convention, or to take any steps to reconcile two arrangements which do not conflict.

  ADMIRALTY—EXPENDITURE.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the strictures passed by the Comptroller and Auditor General upon the unauthorized expenditure in the year ended 31st March, 1888, of over £140,000 on Naval stores, and particularly to the statements that this expenditure appears to be, "in point of law, an act of misappropriation," and that the action of the Admiralty has been "mainly, if not wholly, determined by the desire to expend surpluses rather than surrender them to the Exchequer;" whether the House will have an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon this expenditure; and whether he will give to the House an assurance that similar "acts of misappropriation" shall not occur in future?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the expenditure on Naval stores in 1888 of over £140,000 is now being considered by the Public Accounts Committee, which will no doubt report to the House on the subject. Stores were purchased prior to the 31st of March, 1888, in excess of the value authorized by the Estimates, and paid for out of savings obtained on other Votes. These purchases were reported to the Treasury, as is customary, before the close of the financial year; but as the Treasury did not express their concurrence with the action of the Admiralty before the 31st of March, as required under the terms of the Appropriation Act, the payments so made were questioned by the Comptroller and Auditor General. No doubt the House will have an opportunity of considering the Report of the Public Accounts Committee on the matter. Arrangements will be made to insure the necessary communications as to excess payments being sent at an earlier date in the financial year to the Treasury for their consideration and sanction.
  MR. BARRAN: At what date did the Admiralty com-
  240
  municate with the Treasury as regards spending this money?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: About the usual time, the 28th of March.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Did not the Treasury complain that the Admiralty had not made this application until they had actually incurred the expenditure?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I do not understand that such is the case. The complaint of the Treasury was that the request from the Admiralty was not put forward in sufficient time.

  INDIA—REPORT ON BOMBAY FACTORIES.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if the Report of Mr. Drew on the working of the Bombay Factories has been yet received at the India Office; and, if so, will it be printed and circulated to Members of the House?
  SIR J. GORST: If the hon. Member will move for the Report by Mr. Drew and the other Reports obtained by the Government of India, in reply to the inquiries of the Secretary of State, respecting the Indian Factory Act, they will be given as an unopposed Return.
  MR. J. M. MACLEAN: Will the hon. Gentleman publish the despatch of the Governor General of India on this subject?
  SIR J. GORST: I will if I can, but until the Secretary of State has determined what to do in the matter I cannot promise.

  THE CRAWFORD COMMISSION.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if it is true that some of the judicial officers who have confessed to corrupt practices in connection with the Crawford Commission, while suspended from the exercise of some of their judicial functions, are still maintained in their appointments, and continue to exercise judicial power in civil suits; and, if convenient, will he state to the House what is the exact position of these corrupt officers with regard to the exercise of their public duties?
  SIR J. GORST: On February 7th, the Secretary of State telegraphed to the Government of Bombay as follows:—
  "I await full information as to facts before expressing any opinion myself, but I presume incriminated magistrates are suspended from

  241
  exercising judicial functions pending consideration of case."
  To this he received the following reply:—
  "Magistrates who have acknowledged having purchased their offices suspended from exercising judicial functions during consideration of report."
  On the 9th of April, after considering the papers which he had received from the Government of Bombay in reference to the incriminated magistrates, the Secretary of State telegraphed as follows:—
  "As to incriminated magistrates, general rule must be that those who have given bribes must be deprived of magisterial functions, and must leave it to you to discriminate between cases; but I appreciate importance of pledges given by Government, and also leave it to you to provide such compensation for individuals as you may think necessary. Prompt action is essential. You are at liberty to make known my views if you think advisable. Have all who confessed corruption been suspended? See my telegram 7th February."

  POSTCARDS.
  MR. TOWNSEND: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will be in a position to promise shortly to reduce the cost of inland post cards to one halfpenny each, with power to purchase a single card for that sum, as a boon to the poor man; also to use for the purpose thicker cardboard, as the very thin quality now sold at 7d. per dozen renders such postcards a most unsafe means of correspondence?
  *MR. RAIKES: I would refer the hon. Member to the Report of the Select Committee on Revenue Estimates, which sat in 1888, in which he will find it stated that there is a loss on all halfpenny business of the Post Office; and in view of the feeling evinced by that Committee I do not think it would be right or reasonable to increase that loss by adopting the first suggestion of my hon. Friend. The question of the quality of the card is now under consideration.

  OIL LAMPS IN THE HOUSE.
  MR. WILLIAM M'ARTHUR: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will state the number of oil lamps provided for in the Estimate of £2,000 lately passed by the House; how many of them are hired; from whom are they
  242
  hired; and what sum is paid for their use?
  *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. D. R. PLUNKET,): The number of lamps in use in the building is between 600 and 700. Of these only 24 are the property of the Government, and the remainder belong to the contractors. The contractors are Messrs. Patrick & Co., of 10, Millbank Street, who keep, in order to meet exigencies, a large stock within the building. For instance, 46 additional lamps had to be suddenly supplied for the use of Committees during the fog of yesterday. The charges made by the contractors cover the hiring of the lamps, the supply of oil, and the cost of lighting and trimming the lamps, including the pay of the staff of attendants who constantly inspect the lamps. The charges for such lighting are as follows: —Argand lamps, 11d. each lighting; moderators, 8d. each lighting; smaller lamps at rates varying down to 3d. each lighting. A record is carefully kept each day of the number of lightings. The total number of lightings last year was 60,443.
  MR. M. KENNY: May I ask whether the oil used costs 7s. a gallon?
  *MR. PLUNKET: I am not prepared to say off hand whether it does.
  MR. W. M'ARTHUR: What I am anxious to get at is whether the same charge is made for lamps that are used for a short time as for lamps that are used the whole evening.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: How often is this contract put out to public competition?
  *MR. PLUNKET: I believe the gentlemen who supply us have been supplying us for a great number of years. The question of this contract was carefully gone into last year with the view of seeing whether any reduction could be made. Some reduction, although not a large one, was obtained. I trust that in the future there will be no need for such contracts, owing to the introduction of the electric light.

  THE WARING STREET POST OFFICE, BELFAST.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that no telegraphic connection has yet

  243
  been made with the Post Office, Waring Street, Belfast; and whether he will state when the office will be open for the despatch of telegrams?
  MR. JACKSON (in the temporary absence of Mr. RAIKES): In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I have to say that after answering the question which he put to me on the 11th ultimo, I gave instructions for an extension of the Telegraph to the Post Office in Waring Street to be carried out early in the present financial year. The office, however, cannot be opened for the despatch of telegrams until the necessary wire and fittings have been provided.

  THE LOSS OF THE SULTAN.
  SIR FREDERICK MAPPIN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, inasmuch as the charge of default has been partly proved against Captain Ernest Rice that he committed an error of judgment in running the Sultan so close to the five fathom line on an uneven and rocky bottom, and the same Officer was tried by court-martial for stranding H.M.S. Iris, under his command, on the Avola shore, off Cape Augusta, on the 17th February, 1882, he would state to the House what steps the Government intend to take to secure the safe navigation of Her Majesty's ships in the future?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Every precaution to ensure the safe navigation of Her Majesty's ships is, and always has been, taken, and any further security against accident that experience can suggest is from time to time adopted. The few casualties which have occurred among Her Majesty's ships while employed on every conceivable service in all parts of the world speak well for the precautions observed and the navigating skill of their captain and officers. The British Navy is the only naval service which, as a rule, dispenses with the services of pilots in local waters. I regret, therefore, that, under cover of a Parliamentary question, the hon. Baronet should have made so unfair a reflection upon the capacity and skill of a distinguished service, which is all the more ill-timed as, during the last few days, the display of those very qualities which the right hon. Member insinuates the Navy do not possess saved Her Majesty's ship
  244
  Calliope from a catastrophe which befell all the warships of other nations with whom she was in company.
  SIR F. MAPPIN: May I ask whether, in consequence of these defaults, the Admiralty will consider the desirableness of dismissing Captain Ernest Rice from Her Majesty's service?
  No answer was given.

  CIVIL ESTABLISHMENTS.
  MR. KELLY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now in a position to name the date at which the Bill and Treasury Minute relating to the Reports of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, which were promised on the 7th of last month to be laid upon the Table shortly, will be submitted to the House for consideration?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I regret I am not yet in a position to name the exact date at which the Bill and Treasury Minute relating to the reports of the Civil Establishments Commission will be submitted to the House for consideration. The questions raised in the Reports are so important as to require much time for consideration; but no unnecessary delay shall take place in dealing with them.

  THE TRADE AND LAW STANDING COMMITTEES.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Standing Committees on Trade and Law are to be asked to undertake the consideration of any Bills other than those introduced by the Government?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not aware that in 1882, when Standing Committees were first created, or in 1888, when the question was again discussed, any pledge was given that Private Members' Bills should not be referred to these Committees. I think it would be inadvisable to lay down any specific ruling on the question, as it is often the case that a private Bill so nearly approaches the object sought to be obtained by a Government Bill that time is saved by referring them both to the same Committee. At the same time, I do not think that Private Bills should, as a rule, go to the Standing Committees.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  *MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that on the 3rd April, 1882, the Leader of the House stated that the Government would "continue to do their best to carry out what is an understanding, namely, that on Friday night the Government shall do its best to keep a House"; and whether any modification of this understanding has been subsequently made with the consent of the House?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not aware of the opinion expressed by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian in 1882. I should hesitate very greatly indeed to depart from any tradition which belongs to the House, or from any Rule laid down by a Minister who held the office of First Lord of the Treasury. But the circumstances to which the right hon. Gentleman refers were explained in answer to a question which he put the other night. I do not think that I could depart from the answer then given, which was to the effect that the circumstances in which the Count was moved on Friday last, and on the previous Friday, were such as not to appear to me to make it imperative on the part of the Government to endeavour to keep a House against what was apparently the wish of the great majority of hon. Members.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has referred to what Lord Palmerston said when he obtained from the House the concession of Friday nights in lieu of the former procedure of moving the Adjournment of the House on Friday night, and for which the Government were bound to keep a House in order that the Motion might be carried?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I have not referred to what Lord Palmerston said. I have sought, as far as I could, to consult the convenience of the House, remembering always its traditions and its usages; and I am not aware that it is imperative on the part of the Government to keep a House for the discussion of Motions against the apparent wish of the great majority of the House.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Will the right hon. Gentleman have the goodness to
  246
  refer to the declaration of Lord Palmerston, and then consider how far, on reflection, that declaration bears on the Case? I would by no means undertake to set aside what the right hon. Gentleman has just said with respect to a case which I take to be quite exceptional—namely, when there is a general desire on the part of the House that it should not continue to sit. But apart from that case, I must say that there is no matter connected with the usages of the House, the unwritten rules of the House, more clear than the general obligation of the Government, inconvenient as I know it is to them, to keep a House on Friday night.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I will certainly refer to the statement of Lord Palmerston, and recur to the subject at a future time.

  THE CASE OF JANE NICHOLLS.
  MR. LAWSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to the case of Jane Nicholls, who in May, 1886, was tried at Taunton for the murder of her infant child, and, being convicted of manslaughter only, was sentenced to 20 years' penal servitude, whether, in June, 1887, a petition was presented to him asking for remission of the sentence, and whether Mr. Justice Day, who tried the case, recommended the immediate release of the convict; and, if so, if he could explain to the House why he declined, in his answer to the petition, to interfere with the sentence; whether, in January, 1888, he received a second petition, to which he made the same answer without referring to the learned Judge; and if, under the circumstances, he will reconsider his decision?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The communications between Judges and the Home Office in criminal cases are confidential, and I do not feel at liberty to state the character and effect of Mr. Justice Day's observations on the case of Jane Nicholls. It was a case in which the jury took a merciful view of the offence in finding a verdict of manslaughter only. I received two petitions in favour of the prisoner at the dates named. It would have been contrary to all precedent to discharge the prisoner so soon after a sentence of 20 years' penal servitude had

  247
  been passed; and the facts proved at the trial were not such as, in my judgment, could justify such a course. The time has not yet come when I shall feel able to advise any remission of the sentence.

  TELEGRAPHIC RATES.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, although the telegraphic rate in Great Britain, and between Great Britain and Ireland, is id. per word, and in France rather less than ½d. per word, it is intended that the Anglo-French rates shall be lowered from 2½d. per word to 2d. only, being four times the rate at which a profit might be made; if so, what opportunity he proposes to give the House of discussing these rates, and the "Declaration between the Governments of Great Britain and France respecting telegraphic correspondence exchanged between the two Countries?"
  MR. RAIKES: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that the charge per word for telegrams to France has been reduced by 20 per cent, from 2½d. to 2d. I am not prepared to admit that this is four times the rate at which a profit can be made. On the contrary, I am advised that in the case of many messages it will barely cover the cost of transmission. An opportunity was afforded to discuss the arrangements connected with the acquisition of the property of the Submarine Telegraph Company when the additional Estimate was passed by the House on the 28th ult., and the House has been in possession of full information as to the rates to be charged for telegrams to France as well as to Germany, Holland, and Belgium since the 4th ult., when I answered a question that was put to me on the subject by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir R. Fowler). A further oppertunity for discussion will be afforded when the Estimate for the sum required for the purchase of the Submarine Company's property is presented.

  IMMORAL FRENCH BOOKS.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to a recent case of the seizure of immoral French books exposed for sale in Dublin;
  248
  whether, after a remand and much consideration of the case, the presiding Justice was compelled to decide that he was powerless unless the publications were in English, and added "that the Act was made to prevent the defilement of the young, and he did not see how books in another language could do so"; whether he is aware that it is customary for certain publishers in France to send advertisements of vile books and pictures into English schools, where pupils understand French, through the Post Office, offering to send them in return for payment; whether he is prepared to effect such changes in the law as will render it penal to sell or distribute immoral books or papers in foreign languages; and whether the Post Office could be authorized, as in America, to open letters or parcels when suspected, and to destroy obscene papers found therein?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The Irish Government have furnished me with a report of the case referred to, and the facts are as stated in the question, except that the magistrates did not go further than to express a doubt whether the case came within the Act. Without pledging himself to that view, he abstained from convicting, and cautioned the defendant that if he was summoned again for the same thing he (the magistrate) might possibly come to a different conclusion, I am informed by the Post Office authorities that they are not aware of any law of the United States which authorizes the Post Office of that country to open suspected letters or parcels. Obscene matter is by the law of this country, and also in America, declared inadmissible by the post, and persons offending in this respect are liable to prosecution under the Post Office Protection Act 1884. It is the practice of the Post Office to stop any postal packet received from France which, primâ facie, falls within the description of the Statute, and which his sent in open covers or circulars, and recently that Department has renewed instructions for that purpose. If such advertisements or packets have found their way into English schools (as to which I have no information) they have probably been sent as letters, in which case the Post Office has no knowledge of the contents, or power to interfere with their delivery. The suggestion of the learned

  249
  magistrate that exposing for sale obscene books written in a foreign language is not prohibited by law was expressed by him with diffidence, and I am not prepared to concur with it, at all events, until it has been confirmed by a Superior Court, or to undertake legislation on the assumption that is well founded.

  GOVERNMENT DOCKYARDS—DISCHARGE OF WORKMEN.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the fact that, exclusive of the 400 men recently discharged from the Devonport Dockyard, some 25 fitters were on the 16th March last noticed to leave; whether shortly previous to their being paid off, they received orders to go to the chief engineer's office, and were then informed that if they would remain at lower wages the said notices would be cancelled; whether the reduction in each case amounted to 2s. per week; how many men in all were asked to remain at such lower wages, and how many accepted the same; whether the same or a similar offer was made to the boiler assistants, and whether it was accepted, and by how many; whether in the above cases the men, or some of them., had been working for periods from 2 to 14 years, and when discharged received certificates of good conduct, stating that they had been discharged in consequence of reduction of hands; whether about six weeks ago, some 12 fitters were entered at 5s. or thereabouts per week; how many of these are still retained, and at what wages; whether his attention has been called to a letter in the Western Daily Mercury of the 6th instant, stating, amongst other things, that—
  "Some of the men entered and retained in the joiner's shop knew so little of joiner's work that they failed to pass the usual test of making a sash or a drawer, neither did they possess any joiner's tools, but they received joiner's pay, 27s. per week, and are there now, while I and others were discharged after nine years' service with a certificate marked a very good character and a very good workman."
  Whether, in view of these and similar statements, he will cause an inquiry to be made into the justice of these complaints; and whether, if he is unable to grant such inquiry, he will consent to receive and consider any such cases on their merits?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: In reply to the 10 questions put by the hon. Member, my answer is:—No. 1. Yes, but the number is 15 not 25. No. 2. Yes, as far as concerns 3 out of the 15. No. 3. Yes. Nos. 4 to 5. Seven asked, three accepted; two of these were assistant boiler makers. No. 6. Yes. No. 7. Yes; seven of these are retained as their ability is superior to those discharged. Nos. 8, 9, 10. I decline to pay any serious attention to ex parte and anonymous statements, such as have appeared in the paper referred to, and which are utilized for political purposes, in order to stop dockyard officials from performing their duty in reforming and improving the establishments under them.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to pay my tribute of thanks to the noble Lord for his answer, but to give the Government Notice that I shall, on an early day, be prepared to produce letters signed by individuals.

  GENERAL POST OFFICE—VENTILATION.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether complaints have reached him that in the registered letter rooms, and especially in the north room, there is a want of proper ventilation; that the air is contaminated by fumes of burning wax, dust from the bags, as well as the products of combustion of the gas, and of respiration; that the amount of air is not sufficient for the regular staff, and, that the regular staff is almost constantly augmented by scores of auxiliary hands; and whether the postal authorities have any defined rules as to the cubic feet of air for each individual?
  *MR. RAIKES: Attention bas for some time past been directed to the ventilation of the registered letter room at the General Post Office—to which I presume the question refers—where during the period of the evening duty the atmosphere, in spite of the precautions taken, is at times hot and oppressive, partly, no doubt, owing to the causes which the hon. Member suggests. These rooms together, measure about 200 feet by 32 feet, and contain 16 large windows, all fitted with nightingale boards, two of them having louvre ventilators as well; there are also 14 tobin tubes for the admission of fresh air. More louver

  251
  ventilators are about to be provided; but I expect the greatest improvement from the introduction of the electric light throughout the building, which will take place as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made. Every effort is made to secure the best possible ventilation. There may be particular times when the number of officers on duty exceeds the ordinary staff, but no pains are spared to preserve the health of the officers engaged.

  CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE—SALARIES.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the overpayment in the salaries of clerks in the Central Telegraph Office, prior to April 1888, was due to an error for which the Treasury was responsible, and not to fortnightly payments; whether in the 1,475 officers are included a considerable number of probationers who do receive fortnightly payments, and administrative officers who never have been included in a petition from the main body; whether the maximum salary at present received by nearly two-thirds of the staff is £80, which is the maximum salary of most of the officers in other branches, who are paid monthly; and how many signatures would be necessary to obtain the desired alteration?
  *MR. RAIKES: In reply to hon. the Member, I have to state that the overpayment to which his question refers was not due to an error for which the Treasury was responsible Amongst the 1,475 officers mentioned in my reply to the hon. Member's question of the 25th ultimo, there are included 160 junior telegraphists and probationers who have not yet reached the point where an annual rate of payment begins, but no administration officers are included. 965 telegraphists out of 1,475 are on a scale of salary the maximum of which is £100 a year, and not £80 a a year. The proposal to revert to the fortnightly payment of yearly salaries could not, I regret to say, be entertained, even though the whole of the officers concerned made a request to that effect.

  RAILWAY RATES.
  MR. CAINEasked the President of the Board of
  252
  Trade if the Railway Companies of the United Kingdom have all furnished the information required by a rule of the Board of Trade—namely, that they should "state as far as practicable the existing terminal charges in respect of the several classes of traffic, showing in each case the authority for making the charge;" and, if they have done so, where is the information to be found?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: The statements of the Railway Companies as to terminal charges are with the statements as to existing maximum rates. These statements are not in every instance combined with the proposed classification and schedule of maximum rates, but are contained in separate documents, which the Railway Companies, did not in the first instance, supply to persons applying. A circular, however, as I have already explained, was sent to the Companies, and they have now undertaken to supply the supplementary statement

  THE ALASKA FUR COMPANY.
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is correct that the United States Government has passed an Act declaring the Behring Sea to be a closed sea to all save the Alaska Fur Company, and whether this prohibition has been acquiesced in by Her Majesty's Government and other Foreign Powers; and whether it is correct that the Canadian Government intends next fishing season to enforce its interpretation of the Treaty of 1818 relative to the Atlantic Fisheries; and, if so, what measures Her Majesty's Government intend to adopt for the purpose of procuring the ratification of the recent Treaty of Washington?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Act recently passed by the Congress of the United States does not make any declaration of the nature stated in the question, but simply states that its provisions include and apply to all the dominions of the United States in the waters of Behring Sea. It is the intention of the Canadian Government during the next fishing season to issue fishing licences to United States fishermen, in accordance with the modus vivendi established in the Protocol annexed to the Treaty of Washington. The ratification of any Treaty into which the United

  253
  States have entered depends on the decision of the Senate.

  EMIGRATION TO THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Can the right hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs give the House any information concerning the emigrants to the Argentine Republic?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: We have heard from Buenos Ayres that about 1,000 Irish emigrants arrived there in February, all of whom have settled; 700 English arrived on the 3rd inst; all except seven families are employed. Eight hundred English are expected to arrive to-morrow. Arrangements to obtain employment for them are being made. In consequence of the large number of persons emigrating to the Argentine Republic, arrangements have been made by which their departure will be known, so that her Majesty's Minister may give them any assistance on their arrival of which they may stand in need.

  IRELAND—THE LORD LIEUTENANT—IMPRISONMENT OF MR. O'BRIEN.
  MR. SEXTON: I have to ask the Chief Secretary whether it is true that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Lord Londonderry, and the Lieutenant Governor of West Munster, Colonel Turner, have intimated their desire to resign; whether he can confirm the statement that the County Court Judge of Kerry has practically cancelled the sentence which the Removable Magistrates have inflicted on Mr. W. O'Brien; and whether he has done this in consequence of the Trustees of the Kenmare estates having refused to refer their disputes with the tenants to arbitration?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not yet received a full report of what has occurred, but, as far as I am informed, the right hon. Gentleman is under a mistake. Judge Curran has distinctly stated that the Resident Magistrates have only done their duty in the course they have taken with regard to Mr. O'Brien. I believe I was right in saying on the previous day that the verdict of the learned Judge had no reference to the action taken by the Trustees of the Kenmare estate. I believe there is no foundation for the rumour with regard to Colonel Turner. As to the
  254
  Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, he originally took the office for two years, and under pressure from the Government he consented, at great personal inconvenience, to extend his term of office. We have no right to suppose that he will continue to do that, but he has not sent in his resignation.
  MR. SEXTON: With reference to Judge Curran, may I ask whether the upshot of the matter was not that the Judge inflicted no sentence with regard to the appeal before him?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not believe that is a correct statement. The County Court Judge reduced the sentence by two months, and left the remainder of the sentence untouched.

  THE CONDITION OF DONEGAL—MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I rise, Sir, to ask the leave of the House to move the Adjournment of the House, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the perilous aggravation of the destitution of the people of the county of Donegal, and the danger to the public peace arising from the combined action of the Government and the landlords.
  Leave was given, and
  MR. MAC NEILL: The matter upon which I move the Adjournment is indeed of urgent public importance. No minor political issues would have induced me to take such a step. It is because I believe that the effect of the Motion will be to direct public attention to the condition of Donegal, and many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of lives may be involved. In the county of Donegal the people, even in their best times—even in what are prosperous times for Ireland generally—are never tolerably well off. The Chief Secretary to-day answered my question, with the little official information supplied him, that the inhabitants of Donegal had commenced to live on Indian meal somewhat earlier in the present year than usual. I hope the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members do not know the physical and mental discomforts of a low dietary of this kind. At the best of times the people of Donegal are under-

  255
  fed. In prosperous seasons, with fine harvests, they manage to eke out their existence by little additions to their usual famine diet; but in times of famine and distress, if ever there was a land that could be said to be under the shadow of death, it is Donegal as it is to-day. Very briefly I will lay before the House some few facts described in letters I have received, to show the actual state of destitution in the country, and then I will show the special circumstances that aggravate that destitution. We must remember Donegal is in a remote corner of Ireland, shut out from means of intercommunication with other counties, with no railways, except on the outskirts of the county. It is wild, moor-like, and barren, and the potato crop is the sole means of subsistence for the inhabitants, and when the potato crop fails the people are at famine's door. Many will recollect, and most of us will have read of, the social condition of Ireland at the time of the great potato disease of 1845. Donegal is at this instant in the same physical condition as were the people of Ireland then, threatened with the selfsame danger. I will not ask the House to simply accept my statement. I appeal to evidence. We must all respect that of the Irish priesthood. The Irish priesthood—I say it with not the less feeling of admiration because I worship at a different altar—have ever maintained a conspicuous part in Irish history, but in Donegal the Irish priest bears a still more conspicuous part; he is the sole defence of the people, their sole guardian, their sole protector. Low down in the scale of social position, ignorant—for no education has reached them—under-fed always from various physical and landlord reasons—the only educated person the Donegal peasant has in whom to place confidence and find sympathy is the Irish parish priest. It is the priest who advises the people in difficulties, who reconciles their disputes, who protects them in danger, who consoles them in sickness and adversity, who is a tower of strength to all. The Bishop of Raphoe—a great part of whose diocese consists of the county of Donegal, and includes my constituency—Dr. O'Donnell, wrote to me a letter inclosing one sent to himself in the confidence that exists between the parish priest and his Diocesan, by the Rev.
  256
  Patrick Logue, of Kilcar, in the Northern Division of Donegal. I will read the House a few extracts from this letter, which is dated from Kilcar, March 11—
  "Relative to your Lordship's inquiries, I can safely say that the condition of the people in this parish—Kilcar, a large extensive mountainous parish—is much the same as in 1880. The potato crop has been as bad a failure in the last autumn as in the autumn of 1879. Some are buying Indian meal since Christmas in order to preserve the seed. Others are coming to me for the last fortnight asking for a trifle to buy meal, saying they are eating the seeds. They will get nothing on credit, as their shopkeepers here are struggling themselves and cannot afford to give. I firmly believe that not more than half the people of this parish will have sufficient seed."
  And now I turn to another passage—it illustrates so thoroughly what the parish priest is to these poor people, how he is guardian and comforter, and seeks to prevent aggravation of the distress. Father Logue goes on—
  "I may, perhaps, mention that for the last few days Mr. Musgrave's (landlord's) process server is going through the parish accompanied by two of the Royal Irish serving ejectment processes. Looking at all these things, I am afraid, my Lord, that the situation of the poor people will be a sad one."
  Now, if the House will allow me, I will read an extract from a letter in which the foregoing letter was inclosed to me by the Bishop. It is dated Letterkenny, 12th March. After referring to the letter from Father Logue, describing the condition of Kilcar, Dr. O'Donnell says—
  "Glencolumkille, the neighbouring parish, is still worse off. In West Donegal, Gweedore "—
  Father M'Fadden's parish, it will be remembered—
  "the Two Bosses parishes, and several other districts are in the same plight."
  He goes on to say—
  "It would be useful to find out whether the inhabitants of these parishes are not without seed for the coming spring, and in many instances without the prospect of food. In any case I thought it right to make the true state of affairs known to you, as representing South Donegal—
  and then comes the first faint indication from the Bishop of the organization making the distress worse, bad as it is in itself—
  "Gweedore," says the Bishop of Raphoe, "is still treated as if the natives were. savages."

  257
  [An hon. MEMBER: "Hottentots!"] Now, I come to another letter from gentleman who was sentenced in my presence—or, rather, I witnessed the mock trial. The sentence was pronounced next day, although we all knew what it was to be as well as the Castle. I refer to the Rev. Father Stephens, one of the most devoted men I ever came across in the course of my life. I say of Father Stephens, without hesitation, that I believe, if he could advance the good of these poor, poverty-stricken, half-starved, thinly-clad creatures, he would cheerfully lay down his life for them. He regards his own life and comfort as nothing compared with their social and spiritual needs, and this man has got six months' imprisonment, for, of course, the sentence will be enforced by the County Court. Father Stephens wrote to me on the 21st March, and he says in his letter—
  "One very strong point in connection with the state of the district is this: that at the trial of Mr. John Kelly, for conspiracy with Father McFadden at Bunbeg—"
  This was the first occasion on which Father McFadden was prosecuted, when he got two months' imprisonment, and immediately afterwards went through the length of England, receiving everywhere honours of which any Cabinet Minister might have been proud.
  "At the trial of Father McFadden in connection with the Olphert Estate struggle Sergt. Kenny, of Falcarragh, one of the Crown witnesses, swore in cross-examination that he had been stationed in this district of Falcarragh for the last 14 years, and that he never knee the potato crop during all that time to be a bad as this year."
  Father Stephens tells me—
  "This statement is to be found in the depositions in Mr. Kelly's trial."
  Then he gives a deplorable account of the struggle of the people, especially in the two townlands where events are, proceeding, which I made the subject of questions to-day. In the neighbourhood of Falcarragh, says the rev. gentleman—
  "There are two townlands where, as the Chief Secretary admitted to-day, the inhabitants have been living on Indian meal for the last two months; they are the townlands most affected by the potato disease this year, and they are now afraid to plough their land, being in daily expectation of eviction."
  And now they have fallen victims to the proceedings of the crowbar
  258
  brigade. I have here another letter from Father Logue, the gentleman who wrote to his Bishop in confidence, and whose letter I would not have repeated without leave if it had not been referred to in the more extended report of the state of his parish he makes to me. The House will bear with these details on account of the gravity of the circumstances. It is far better to hear the words of these people than any amount of declamation from me. This is the further letter from the Rev. Patrick Logue, dated March 22—
  "I have seen your question to the Chief Secretary relative to the Messrs. Musgrave's process server, and I have read the answers of Mr. Madden."
  It was the Solicitor General who answered my question—
  "This process server (Byrne) may have come into the parish on a car, but during the days of his duties in Kilcar no car was employed by him or the Royal Irish. I have seen Byrne more than once walk through the parish with a policeman at each side of him."
  Here comes a remonstrance from the parish priest anxious that a slur should not be cast on the reputation of his parish.—
  "I am in a position to say that if Byrne were serving processes in this parish for a hundred years not a hair of his head would be touched, not an angry word would be said to him, and well he knows this. I may tell you the poor people are quite mad, disgusted with the proceedings, as they say it will bring a bad name on the parish, at all times so peaceful under sufficient provocation."
  Then comes his statement as to the distress existing—
  "I have been through the parish for the past fortnight, and found out more fully the circumstances of the people, and I can say with a safe conscience that the reports I have sent to the Bishop are underrated. Many of the people are eating the potato seed, and some are coming to me for a little money to buy Indian meal, that they may save, at least, a little seed. I did not imagine that they were in such circumstances until I had gone amongst them and found out the sad realities. I repeat it, this year is just as bad as 79–80. They have no credit. I cannot see how they will be able to struggle through until August without aid from some quarter, and from the Government quarter we need not, I suppose, expect much."
  No; except, perhaps, a battering ram. Then I have another report from another parish priest. These devoted men have in their hands, I say—distinctly speaking, from my own knowledge—the lives and destinies of these poor people—they are their only protection against the iron

  259
  hand of arbitrary power. This gentleman writes from another parish in the district. It is from the Rev. Peter Kelly, the parish priest of Dunphanagy. He writes on March 22, and says:—
  "I have before me in the Freeman of March 27 your question re failure of potato crop in Gweedore. I wish this question could be put in such a way as would compel the Chief Secretary to give his authority for denying that the potato crop of last year has not been so great a ailure in Donegal as it was in 1879."
  I ask attention to these statements in contrast to the official information which lightly passes over this horrible distress, but which comes to us who know the reality, who have seen the scenes of misery in former days, with terrible emphasis. "The fact is," continues my correspondent—
  "It is universally admitted to have been worse. This applies to the entire coast line and the mountains. In a former question several parishes were named as suffering peculiarly this year from failure of potatoes last season. Many parishes not named are quite as badly off in this respect as the ones named—for instance, Clondahnky or Dunfannaghy parish. I have been engaged for several weeks back at the half-yearly visitation of this parish, and I find that quite a large number of the peasant occupiers have little or no seed potatoes or oats; and, speaking generally, the quality of potatoes saved up under great difficulties for seed are of a very inferior quality. This holds for all the parishes around the seaboard."
  The Chief Secretary has never been to Donegal, but let him look and see what "all the parishes around the seaboard" means—
  "I think it is to be greatly regretted that this matter has not been urged more than it has been on the attention of the Government. But with us locally in these parts,"
  and here comes in the aggravation—here comes in the action of the Government, who, instead of playing the part of Good Samaritans, rub salt and vinegar into the wounds and help the landlords to take advantage of this distress—
  "with us locally in these parts other things forced themselves on us too much "—
  he refers to the prosecutions of Father M'Fadden and Father Stephens—
  "to admit of fuller attention to this one. It is now too late to do anything in the way of having seed provided for the poor people, and the consequences, I must believe, will be very serious. Mr. Balfour could have been answered on the former occasion when the failure of the potato crop was brought up, and when he denied it, by referring him to the sworn testimony of Sergeant Kenny, R.I.C.. Fal-
  260
  carragh, at Mr. John Kelly's trial a Bunbeg."—
  This evidence I have given in my reference to the letter from Father Stephens. This man swore against his own interest, for it is the interest of the Government to put the best face possible on these matters, and there is not a man of the Constabulary, from the Sub-Constable up to the Inspector General who does not give evidence with. his eye on the Treasury Bench. Respect for truth compelled him to make a statement which the Government will not, however, accept. Further, Father Kelly writes:—
  "Shane O'Donnell, of Falcarragh, who is poor rate collector in his own and Gweedore parishes, holds that there has not been so complete a failure of potatoes since 1847."
  And now comes another contradiction to the statement which a gay Castle official. who does not care, put into the mouth of the Chief Secretary—
  "Ordinary seed potatoes are now being sold for 6d. a stone. Usually they do not fetch more than 3d. or 2½d. or 2d."
  Sixpence is then a famine price, and be it observed that the people do not usually buy seed potatoes at all, so that to pay even 2d. means severe sacrifice to them.
  "If the people were able to buy seed potatoes in sufficient quantities for their lands, there would be nearly enough to be had in all these parishes at any money. I never knew the people in any parish I have been in—and I have been over the greater part of the country—so far run down at they are here at present.. Their shop debts would be equal to a year's produce of their holdings all round, and the same may be said of all the parishes in the poorer parts of the country."
  In fact, these wretched holdings, which create horror in the minds of people who see them for the first time, are precisely of that class of holdings that come under those which Sir James Caird said at the best of times could pay no rent at all. They would pay no rent at all, or far less rent, but that it is collected by the Castle officials. The Chief Secretary gives the answers supplied to him by persons who are irresponsible to us but he might ask—the thought might occur to him—parish priests to give him information upon which he might rely. It is no pleasure to the Irish Party—for this question is raised by the Party; I would not make this

  261
  Motion on my own responsibility — to parade the misfortunes of our people; it is a most humiliating thing, and we would not do it except as a last resource. On the near approach of the famine of 1845 we had Government denials just as we have them now. The Chief Secretary, I dare say, sometimes reads the Dublin Evening Mail. In 1845 it had the same political views as now, and on Nov. 3 the Dublin Evening Mail made a statement that the Chief Secretary might have repeated to-day—" The potato crop far exceeds the average, and apprehensions are unfounded." At that time too, we, had Mr. Stanley—he was called Scorpion Stanley, and became famous afterwards as Lord Derby—declaring that apprehensions of potato famine were baseless. There was like wise a man of genius hovering round the skirts of the Conservative Party, but giving them a prod now and then, though their friend on an emergency—Lord George Bentinck. He said the famine was a gross dilusion. This was the view of the Press and Government of that day, but the gross delusion cost Ireland in deaths alone the loss of a million souls. Landlords exercised their harsh rights then, and people who were not destroyed outright were shipped off in thousands to America and elsewhere. Public opinion is too strong for that now, and it is to public opinion we appeal from the Government, with an unvarnished statement of facts. When a deputation from Achill in the days of 1845 waited upon Sir R. Rouse at Dublin Castle, and urged their claims for assistance, the gaunt looks of the members of the deputation supporting the appeal, they were met with refusal on the grounds of political economy, and with a reference to the writings of Edmund Burke. Would a Parliament in Dublin, even though composed of landlords, have allowed the people to starve? And now I have to refer to the aggravating circumstances of this destitution I have described in the words of parish priests. The poverty now prevailing in Donegal s aggravated by the Government striking down the natural leaders of the people, terrorizing the peasantry, and ending the forces of the Crown to carry out unjust evictions. Gweedore is probably the most destitute parish in Ireland, and it has been subjected to
  262
  needless trouble and cruelty by the circumstances attending the arrest of Father M'Fadden. I believe the right hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division would admit that during the two years he held the office of Irish Secretary not a single difficulty occurred in the whole county of Donegal, while he carried out a coercion régime under Lord Spencer. It was a crimeless county. What is it now? Dragooned by police, military, and resident magistrates. I do not regard these last as judicial, but as executive functionaries. All this has arisen from circumstances in connection with the arrest of Father M'Fadden. First let us consider what Father McFadden was arrested for. They have arrested him now on a charge of murder, and they are going to keep him in gaol until July next, that they can have a free hand to exterminate his parishioners. That is the real reason why he has been remanded. But what was his arrest for? It was for giving counsel, in his capacity of a parish priest, such as any Christian and just man ought to have given—namely, that the poor people ought to continue to retain their houses—or rather their wretched miserable hovels—for they are places which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. A. J. Balfour) would be very sorry to put his dog in, if he has one. The rev. gentleman had been arrested before. He was too good a man to escape arrest, and he regards his imprisonment as a high honour. And so did the English people among whom. he went after his last imprisonment, and who received him with joy and acclamation. Father M'Fadden was arrested on the last occasion on a Sunday, in the very midst of his congregation, and wearing his priestly vestments. The congregation consisted of some 500 persons, and yet only six policemen were sent to arrest the priest. I am extremely sorry for Martin's death, and we all regret it most deeply, but as this is a case involving the lives of the people, I am constrained to say that Martin was known to be an excitable man. The arrest was made under circumstances which were described to me by Father M'Fadden himself whilst I was sitting beside him in Court. Father McFadden laughed at and ridiculed the idea of his being charged with murder. He said he was quite expecting arrest, but not on.

  263
  that day. Mr. Martin, however, when the rev. gentleman came out of the chapel, went up to him and said, "I arrest you." Father M'Fadden asked where was the warrant, and a sergeant brought it up two or three minutes afterwards. Martin caught the rev. gentleman by the collar of his coat in a very savage manner, and at the same time drew his sword and brandished it over his head. A woman, seeing this violence, rushed in between the two. Father M'Fadden did his best to quieten her. Martin was still brandishing the sword. Another woman then called out, "They are murdering the priest." Then a melée took place, and Father M'Fadden and his sister were both hit. The priest turned back, at the risk of his life, to put a stop to the disturbance; but it was of no use. Well, I say that the Government are directly responsible for that occurrence. Father M'Fadden was put in prison, and then came the reign of terror. In all my experience I never recollect 46 persons being placed in the dock on a charge of murder. The police had a free hand. They went through the country and treated the people, as the Bishop of the diocese has stated, as if they were savages. The incidents of the arrest were something too shocking. They were characterized by both cruelty and cowardice. I have said that 46 persons were placed in the dock. Of the persons who were arrested and let off after being terrorized by the police there are no statistics. The whole district was like a country under siege. Men were actually known to hide in the caves of the earth and in the mountains for three weeks, to avoid the police. One man's mind was affected by the terror. They are very simple and primitive people, the only parallel to the completely patriarchial life in Donegal that I ever heard of being that to be found in the history of the Jesuits in Brazil. The Derry Journal of March 1889, states that a man named James M'Caffery attempted to commit suicide, thinking that the police were going to arrest him in connection with the murder. Another man, who was not at Derrybeg at all, went away and hid himself for three weeks. The Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Madden), when I asked him a question recently, admitted that two shots were fired, but
  264
  said they were fired for the purpose of signalling. I have often heard magnificent suggestions and explanations proceeding from Dublin Castle; but I never heard such an explanation as that before. It must have been received with a burst of laughter by Head Constable Mahoney, who was one of the heroes of that incident, and who has been promoted from the rank of sergeant on account of it. I find the case to be this. A man named Anthony Gallagher was walking in the district of Gweedore three weeks after the murder when Sergeant Mahoney called on him to stop. The man ran away and four constables followed him, three shots were fired at him, and, finally, when the police got up to him, Mahoney rushed up to him and, putting his revolver to his breast, asked where the other men were. There was absolutely no evidence against Gallagher and he was subsequently released from custody. A man named Cafferty also ran from two policemen, one of whom was Varrally, who gave evidence in favour of Father M'Fadden, and a shot was fired at him. Now I come to the cowardice, and you will always perceive that cruelty and cowardice go hand in hand. The cruelty that has been perpetrated is of so odious and vile a character that it would not, I believe, be tolerated on a slave-dhow manned by Arabs. Her Majesty's Ship Banterer arrived at noon on one day and landed policemen on the islands surrounding Gweedore. Twenty men were arrested and handcuffed. The inspector put the keys of the handcuffs in his pocket, and put the prisoners in a boat, remaining on shore himself. The prisoners were tossing about handcuffed in a cockle-shell boat on a rough and dangerous sea during a severe storm from 1 p.m. till 4 p.m. When the Banterer again appeared the naval officers told the constables that they could not take the prisoners on board handcuffed, but they were eventually taken into the vessel, where they lay huddled together, handcuffed, and with their wrists bleeding, until the morning. When they reached Gweedore barracks they were discharged by a constable on his own responsibility. And what was the reason for this treatment? The police wanted to strike terror and dismay into the breasts of the people, so that when the battering-

  265
  rams came, and the country was to be cleared, the Chief Secretary might be able to say, in his gayest tones, that the evictions had been effectual. One man was arrested four times, and at 4 a.m. on March 6th, the Rifles, the Scots Greys, and all the police, took possession of all the roads and began to march through a district sixteen miles in circumference. They moved slowly down to the shore searching every house and barn, and smashing in the doors. They arrived on the shore at about 6 a.m., having made no arrests. The fact is, they did not care to make any arrests. What they wanted to do was, to strike terror into the hearts of the people, and so carry out the Government policy. The police and soldiers suffered severely, it is said, from cold and hunger, and I think their rulers ought to have suffered severely from the pangs of conscience, if they have any consciences. Raids also took place on two other occasions, and doors were broken open. Well, I believe, on my honour, that Father M'Fadden is kept in prison to-day on this got-up charge of murder simply to keep him from protecting the tenants. I will show the House conclusively that the removable Court, before which he has been appearing, is as much a part of the Castle machinery as Head Constable Mahoney himself. Father M'Fadden was arrested on the 3rd of February, and the Assizes took place on the 4th or 5th of March. Between the two dates Father M'Fadden was remanded three or four times. No evidence whatever was adduced against him until after the Assizes had closed, and then came the police evidence, which was all in Father M'Fadden's favour. He was not brought up at the Assizes, but was kept in prison, and is to be kept there until July, in order that the work of eviction may go on. On Monday, March 4th, I saw Father M'Fadden in the court, and, though I have seen poverty in all its forms, I never saw a more pitiable spectacle than I witnessed in the streets of Derry that day. There were a number of poor and miserable creatures, with despair on their faces, walking two and two, with handcuffs actually dug into their flesh. It was snowing at the time. The men were lugged like so many pigs into a third class carriage. After them, in a cab, came two women,
  266
  with no hats on, with very thin shawls, and wretched gowns. One of them had a child in her arms, and the cold wind seemed to be almost freezing the marrow in the poor creature's bones. I saw Captain Hamilton, in court, act a remarkable part. It was the third or fourth remand, and Captain Hamilton stated to Mr. Ros, the Crown Counsel, that he could not understand the remands being so frequent. However, although this reprimand was given to the Crown Counsel, they were not remanded finally until the 30th of March. And why was that? If they had been remanded finally on March 4th or March 8th, Father M'Fadden would have been sent to the Assizes. After the 4th of March there were no less than ten remands. The fact proves that the men on the Bench were as completely the servants of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. A. J. Balfour) as a figure in Punch and Judy is the creature of the man who pulls the strings. The Solicitor General for Ireland (Sergeant Madden), in reply to a question put by some hon. Gentleman from England who takes an interest in these matters, stated that nothing unusual occurred in the remanding of Father McFadden on the charge of wilful murder. We can scarcely get Englishmen to believe the methods which are used in Ireland. I have stated that the Government are cruel, and that their Administration is cruel in these matters, and I now turn to the question of evictions, which are going on at this day, and which are necessarily fresh in our minds. I would ask this question—Why is not the Sheriff employed at these evictions, and why are emergency men, full of loyalty and mischief, employed—men of straw against whom no action can be brought and who have no responsibility. I should have been treating the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary unfairly if, in the spirit of Party, I had overstated the case. The right hon. Gentleman has admirers in Dublin, but I charge him with having raised a spirit of sectarian hatred in the country. At a meeting of the Donegal Temperance Loyal Orange Lodge, No. 832, the Worshipful Master in the chair, a resolution was passed condemning the cold-blooded murder of the late District Inspector Martin while in the peaceful discharge of his legal duty to his Queen, Country,

  267
  and Constitution, under the eye of his parish priest, and expressing their unwavering confidence in "our superior, excellent, and redoubtable champion, Mr. Balfour, Chief Secretary." There is a pinnacle of fame for the right hon. Gentleman. May that superior, excellent and redoubtable champion of the Orange party long be spared to them, and I may say that we on this side of the House would be sorry not to have him, as we consider him a great friend of ours although he does not appear to know it. In conclusion I must express my gratitude to the House for the patience with which it has heard me. I have only to add that I have instituted this action under the advice of my hon. Friends. I believe that in Donegal the whole procedure of the Courts of Justice is prostituted to political ends, and if no protest were made against this there would be a repetition of the scenes of 1846, and thousands of lives might be lost. For my part I have no apprehension of the result, for sooner or later there must be an end to this régime. I move the Adjournment of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Mac Neill.)
  *MR. STUART: In seconding the Motion, I desire to say that the speech just addressed to the House has been full of earnestness and of telling and solid facts, and in seconding the Motion made by the hon. Gentleman I shall detain the House but a very short time. I have risen to perform this duty because of my own connection with Father M'Fadden, and because of what I have myself observed in relation to the district during the past few years. The last speaker has drawn a vivid picture of the misery of the peasants of Gweedore. That misery is a chronic misery. I think one of the most painful records of this House is the Blue Book containing the proceedings of the Committee which inquired into the condition of the peasantry of Gweedore a considerable number of years ago. The narrative of those proceedings shows that the people of Gweedore are an ignorant people, but they have a great deal of natural nobility of character, are a very virtuous people, and very free from crime and drunkenness. But there are, of all things in the world,
  268
  three things which characterize them. First of all they have great veneration for their priests—a veneration which is worthily placed by them in those men. In the second place, they display a love for their homes and an extreme terror of those homes being torn down or destroyed; and, in the third place, they have a continual and an enduring belief that the landlords and the Government are one and the same thing. Now, Sir, the Government have attacked these peasants of Donegal on all these three points. They have placed their beloved priest under arrest on a charge of murder upon a class of evidence which, I will venture to say, no one can enter into without feeling its unworthiness. They have closed his mouth as a witness in respect of what occurred. They have been sending battering rams and other means of destroying the houses of the poor peasantry, and I think enough has already been said to show that they have been identifying landlordism with the Government. Now, Sir, why do the Government do nothing on the other side? It may be that they are sadly necessitated to connect this priest with the murder—I will make that admission if they wish it. It may be, also, they are under the sad necessity of tearing down and destroying the houses in which this miserable people might, by seeking refuge there, render themselves criminals; and it may be the sad and unfortunate necessity of the Government to bring to bear the forces of the law in support of a system of landlordism which is essentially unjust. But, if this be so, surely it is their duty to try and hold as even a hand as they can, and surely, when there is so much good evidence of the immense sufferings and poverty, starvation and famine, in Donegal, it is their duty to make the most minute inquiries, and even to go further than those inquiries. I think that a good case is made out, if for nothing else, for their interference in some way, to shelter from famine those poor people of Donegal, whose natural shelter they have removed—for the shelter of the Donegal people has been their good priests, such as Father M'Fadden, men who have withstood the iron hail which the landlords have showered against them, and have remained the friends, and just friends of the people. The settlement Father

  269
  M'Fadden made a full year ago on the Gweedore estate was made with the full concurrence of the Crown Solicitor, and the Resident Magistrate, Mr. Bourke, took an active part in assisting to bring about the settlement. Father M 'Fadden' s share in it was this—that when he saw a settlement made that was admitted by the Crown Solicitor to be just, he undertook the collection of the rents, and in eleven days he collected £1,500, the whole sum he had undertaken to collect, and which not the whole of the armed forces of the Crown could have got without him. Perhaps I ought to say he did not collect it all; for, finding he was £150 short, he paid that sum out of his own pocket. Well, what happened? It was when he was promoting this settlement on the estate of one who is nearly allied to the head of the Government in Ireland, that the Government came down on him and he was cast into prison. The result was that terror and agitation reigned in Gweedore. I hold in my hand a letter in reply to one which I myself wrote for the purpose of ascertaining the state of things there; the curate said the excitement was so great that it took him all his time to keep the people quiet, and he added that what had been the great difficulty there was to collect such a sum of money from the poor people, "but the sum needed was collected and paid over to the Crown Solicitor to be given to the landlord—the same Solicitor who is now prosecuting Father M'Fadden." If the excitement was so great when he was arrested on a charge of conspiracy, cannot the House understand the feelings of the people when Father M'Fadden was arrested on a charge of murder? The tenants of Gweedore had been living on the charity of the world—or rather, not the tenants but the landlords. I have a letter from Father M'Fadden himself, in which he describes the way in which he collected the rent. He tells of how eagerly the people make the effort to pay, and mentions the case of Hanna Sweeney, whose payment was £1 8s. 9d.—a fact showing how small the tenancies are, there being 940 tenants from whom the £1,500 was obtained. Father M'Fadden also speaks of money that was sent over from America and the Colonies, and also contributed by girls in service. Well, what was the result of all this? The result
  270
  was that the people were kept in their homes, so that you can easily see what grounds there are for the confidence of the people in Father M'Fadden, and their reverence for him, and the danger there is in his wanton removal by an imprisonment of six months. Why, I ask, are the Government passing over the Assizes and keeping his trial back till July? When I was there there were very few tenants in that part of the country who have got a judicial rent, and the reason for this lies in the matter of sub-division. This question of subdivision is an exceedingly difficult one. There are something like 150 or 200 tenants, who got the judicial rents awarded three years ago, and every one of them had their cases put through by Father M'Fadden. He has been their shelter and their rock of defence, but the Government have removed him. If he be guilty, if the Government have reason to think him guilty of murder—why do they not try him? They will have no more evidence in consequence of all this hurrying backwards and forwards, and carrying so many shivering creatures about, not only on the railway, but in cars on the roads over those bleak mountains. The Government will get no evidence they have not already, and all the evidence they have is police evidence. Father M'Fadden has not only been the people's priest and defender against the landlord, but he has also been their medical man and engineer. From top to bottom of the whole system we find the moving influence exercised by such men as Father M'Fadden. I think I have made out that by the arrest of Father M'Fadden the Government have removed a bulwark and a rock of defence which has been a great assistance in the protection of the people of this district. They have sided with the landlords, but I would ask the Chief Secretary what has he done for the poor, and what is to take the place of that which he has removed? What has he done to bring contentment and order into the misery and confusion he has left behind, and if he has done nothing,, what does he intend to do?
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Mac Neill.)
  *THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The debate has wandered over a great variety of topics, some of them large and some of them small, and I might have been able to give hon. Gentlemen who have manifestly come down with prepared speeches fuller information if they had advised me of their intention to bring forward this Motion.
  MR. STUART: Allow me to make a personal explanation. I had no knowledge of this Motion until I came down to the House.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I certainly knew of the intention to bring this Motion forward, but I purposely omitted to give any intimation because I feared that if I did so some notice would be placed on the Paper which would have prevented the Motion being made.
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not make it a matter of complaint; but I mentioned it in order to state that, if hon. Gentlemen choose to raise such a debate without Notice, they, have themselves to blame if they do not get as full and satisfactory an answer as they desire. It is absolutely impossible for the Minister, under such circumstances, to give the same detailed information he would otherwise like to give. I certainly thought the hon. Member who introduced the subject would have been able to make a more satisfactory explanation of the want of notice. With regard to some of the matters which have been mentioned, it is not necessary that I should say a word. Both the Mover and the Seconder, in the exercise of their rights as Members of Parliament, have thought it right to refer to matters which are still pending in a Court of law—namely, those relating to the arrest and trial of Father M'Fadden. It is a very bad precedent, and I shall not endorse it by following it. The Mover has given a long and sensational account of the incidents that attended the arrests in connection with the murder of District Inspector Martin. Those who are acquainted with that transaction know that a large crowd of persons took part in it; and it was consequently inevitable that a large number of arrests should be made I deny, however, that any unnecessary hardship has been inflicted by the police in making the arrests. The hon. Member has made the usual attack on the Resident Magistrates, and has repeated the old cry that, because their
  272
  tenure of office is not a permanent one, they are the mere tools of Dublin Castle. That is an ancient complaint; but all those who are acquainted with the Government of Ireland know that it is a suggestion that has been repudiated in as strong language as any I can use by right hon. Gentlemen who now sit on the Bench opposite, and who have been responsible for the government of Ireland. Hon. Gentlemen who make this charge are really not very wise in their generation, for the same charges of unfairness and of dependence on the Castle are also levelled against the County Court Judges, who are irremovable and absolutely independent of the Executive.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I referred to Judge Webb, and I said that I had a great personal regard for him except when he came to adjudicate upon these cases. He is well-known to be a member of the Loyal and Patriotic Rest Society.
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot see what the explanation of the hon. Member has to do with the matter. My remark was simply that the Resident Magistrates are attacked on the ground that they are removable, and, therefore, the creatures of Dublin Castle, and the same charge is levelled against the County Court Judges who hear the appeals from the decisions of the Resident Magistrates, and who are absolutely irremovable. It is easy to estimate the value of such accusations against the tribunals of the country when we find the same charges made against the Resident Magistrates because they are dependent on the Government, and also against the County Court Judges who are not dependent on the Government. Another charge made by the hon. Member against the Government is that a police witness in this case appeared in the witness-box who was not absolutely sober. No doubt that was a serious matter from a disciplinary point of view, but how can it be made a matter of charge against the Government or the Resident Magistrates? I pass from that part of the hon. Gentleman's speech to the remarks he made with regard to certain evictions which are now going on. The hon. Gentleman complained that in the evictions on the Olphert Estate the agent of the landlord has been employing special

  273
  bailiffs, and not the officers of the sheriff; but this is left quite optional under the Act of 1887, and before that Act the employment of special bailiffs was in every case the invariable and necessary practice. Mr. Olphert, or his agent, in employing special bailiffs is only doing what he would have been obliged to do two years ago. I cannot see what the grievance is in regard to this point, nor is it one with which the Government, the Resident Magistrates, or the police have anything to do. They cannot decide whether special bailiffs shall be employed or the agents of the sheriff. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last complained that battering-rams have been used by the police to support the landlords' agents and destroy the tenants' houses. As a matter of fact, these battering-rams have been constructed and are solely employed for the protection of the lives and limbs of the police. What has been the course of procedure which has rendered them necessary? The National League sent down an emissary of their own to induce the tenants to combine under the Plan of Campaign.
  MR. MAC NEILL: The Land League is dead.
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then the National League. The people are prevailed upon to pay their money into "the war chest," and they thus are deprived of all opportunity of settling or making an arrangement with their landlord. When an attempt is made to evict them they barricade their houses,
  Bridges are broken down and roads destroyed, boiling water is poured on the police, weapons of a most formidable kind are used, and the resistance is often prolonged for hours, during which both the police and the persons offering this resistance are exposed to great danger. Being responsible for the executive government of Ireland, I feel that I should be guilty of a grave dereliction of duty if I did not do all in my power to put an end to such scandalous scenes, and therefore it is that these battering-rams have been constructed for the purpose of affording protection to the police in the discharge of their duty. There cannot be a more innocent, a more harmless, and a more effective method of carrying out that object. The
  274
  hon. Member for Hoxton (Mr. Stuart) says that battering-rams are being used to back up an unjust system of landlordism, and I am curious to know what the hon. Gentleman means by landlordism. When a gentleman of culture and education uses the word in that House he must attach a meaning to it. Does he mean property in land? If not, what does he mean? If he does, is it to be understood that he objects to it? Does he adopt the idea of some that there ought to be no property in land? Can he suggest any scheme by which property in land is to be a reality and not a sham, and yet in which at some stage, sooner or later, when the tenant deliberately refuses to fulfil his legal obligations, the law is not to step in and enforce the obligations sanctioned by the law? If that is landlordism, then I say that landlordism ought to be supported. If it is not I wait with great interest to learn what is meant by the expression. I will not lay down so extravagant a proposition as that every landlord is always right, but I emphatically assert that on these estates in Donegal, where the Plan of Campaign has been in operation, the iron sleet "has not been poured by landlords upon tenants, but it has been poured by those who, unfortunately, had it in their power to influence tenants to adopt the Plan of Campaign. I do not propose to frame an indictment against priests or one of them; but I say that if any priest in Donegal has been instrumental in starting among his flock the Plan of Campaign, it may have served the interests of a political Party, but it has not served the interests of the tenants. We are told that it has been adopted on the Olphert estate. Until a few years ago, and through all the bad years of 1878 and 1881–2, the landlord was in perfect harmony with his tenants; he was a resident landlord, and he was recognized as a good landlord and it was the intervention of irresponsible parties that had brought upon the peasantry the evils of eviction and all the attendant horrors that have been so loudly complained of. The hon. Gentleman spoke with evident feeling —a feeling with which, if he will permit me to say so, I fully sympathize—of the distress which exists in Donegal; and the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has complained of the Govern-

  275
  ment for not making inquiry into the extent and nature of that distress. His complaint is unjust, for an inquiry has been made. I have from time to time taken such means as I could, through such channels as were open to me, to acquaint myself with the condition of things in Donegal, and the information I have more than once received and communicated to the House does not bear out the sensational statements that have been made by the hon. Gentleman.
  *MR. MAC NEILL: I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I may remind him that he was once asked the date of a Report and he did not know it.
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was probably, as usual, asked without notice. I have made inquiry, and I have just received a telegraphic summary of the results of another inquiry in Donegal.
  MR. W. MACDONALD: Who made the inquiry?
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman who interrupts me knows very well that for such information I can appeal only to magistrates, the police, and the Inspectors of the Local Government Board.
  MR. SEXTON: Why not the priests?
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will leave it to the hon. Gentleman to supply an answer to his own question. The telegraphic summary I have just received states that there is not the slightest ground for believing that there is any distress which the ordinary Poor Law cannot deal with; the potato crop of last year is not up to the average, but the falling off is chiefly in the size of the potato and is not due to disease; and it is believed there is more money in the country than usual. The cause of this is probably the rise in the price of stock. On property on which tenants have been allowed to pay their landlords, they have paid in many cases a portion of their arrears as well as their rents; stock is fetching good prices; pigs sell well; there is a good crop of oats with plenty of straw; tenants are buying meal, but that is usual in these months unless the potato crop has been good; on most farms people are hard at work; and there is no difficulty in getting seed potatoes at 6d. a stone or less. [Several hon. MEMBERS: "Six-
  276
  pence?"] A similar famine cry was raised last year in regard to the Ardmore estate when evictionswere pending; but the Plan of Campaign was not adopted on the Ardmore estate; the tenants paid their rent and nothing more was heard of famine. My informant says that he never heard anything of destitution or of famine in connection with this district. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not interpret what I am saying as indicating that there is no poverty in Donegal. I do not deny that there is great poverty, for there has been chronic poverty in parts of Donegal; but no Gentleman opposite has suggested a remedy for the poverty in these congested districts of Ireland. It is admitted it is not to be met by dealing with rents, for the rents range from £2 to £3, or, say, a shilling a-week. No labourer in England gets a house for a shilling a-week, and, if the rents are small, still more insignificant and microscopic is the difference between the tenants and the landlords in respect of their amount. It is absolutely futile and absurd to suppose that if the rent was got rid of altogether that of itself would produce a happy and prosperous tenantry. It seems to be supposed that this and other evils are to be cured by the mere establishment of a Parliament in Dublin. I do not dispute the wisdom of the measures which a Parliament in Dublin will pass when such a Parliament is established, and I suppose that the hon. Gentleman expects to be one of the ornaments of that Parliament; yet he does not suggest to this House any way of dealing with this chronic poverty. I accept the fact of that poverty, and I deplore it, but do not let us be led away by the cry that it is altogether due to the action of the landlords. It is due to a cause which has been mentioned by the bon. Member for Hoxton—the subdivision of land against the wish of the landlords. It is not because land is over-rented, but because it is overcrowded, that there is chronic poverty, and until means are suggested by which overcrowding can be diminished, it is in vain to talk of landlordism, to protest against evictions, and to try to make political capital out of the lamentable incidents which attend them. No man can deplore more than I do the necessity for these evictions. The Plan of Campaign is responsible for

  277
  them. No man can deplore more than I do the poverty from which some of these poor people suffer, but neither this Government nor any other Government has been responsible for that poverty, and I have not yet heard from any Irish patriot any reasonable solution of the evils.
  MR. O'HEA: Sir, we are becoming accustomed to the sophistical speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Of course the Irish Nationalists and the Plan of Campaign are, in his mind, the causes of the great distress that at present prevails in Donegal. During the course of his speech, he only very faintly touched upon the substantive portion of the Motion put on the Paper by my hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman complained at the outset that this Motion was sprung upon the House; but let me remind him that there have been a series of questions on the Paper in this House, day after day, for upwards of a month, and the information at the command of the right hon. Gentleman must have been fully adequate to enable him to make the speech which he has just delivered. He complained that two of my hon. Friends had discussed a case which was sub judice; but, Sir, that complaint comes rather badly from one who proceeded at length, and in detail, to discuss a case which is pending, for he discussed the case of Father Stephens, who has to take his trial to-morrow. He referred to the condition of things in the parish of Falcarragh, and he denounced, with all the strength of language and vituperation at his command, the attempts we are making to redress the grievances, and to alleviate the sufferings of the unfortunate people in that district. The right hon. Gentleman asks why we have no nostrum to put forward. He admits there is a great deal of suffering and destitution, and I think an answer to his question is contained in the treatment both of Father Stephens and of Father McFadden. When reasonable offers of settlement are being made, they are met with contumely, and indignantly and contumaciously spurned. The two men who are the victims of a Crimes Act prosecution are, I believe, as beloved as any clergymen in Ireland. I refer to Father McFadden and Father Stephens. Father Stephens
  278
  endeavoured to act as mediator in a case in which his own people were under notice of eviction; Father McFadden did the same. As to bow the efforts of these gentlemen were received, I propose, with the permission of the House, to quote shortly from a letter received by Father McFadden from Mr. Henry Nixon, the owner of an estate in his district. Father McFadden used every effort that a human being could use for the purpose of bringing about a friendly and just settlement between this landlord and his tenants, and the words of Mr. Nixon which I propose to read will speak more eloquently than any words I could utter. "I may tell you," writes this Gentleman,
  "that I would not now accept 99 per cent of all the rent and costs due to me, as I am going to clear the two townlands of Dringlass and Glaasachoo. It is my land that I want now; remember they are living on my land so long as I let them. I have ample private means, and will set aside a certain sum yearly in order to clear them out. In doing this I am only following out the scriptural pretext—"
  They say a certain sable gentleman always quotes Scripture when it suits his purpose—
  "the scriptural pretext that a man may do what he likes with his own. I am so determined on this, that in five, or at least ten years, there will not probably be a single family left there."
  That, Sir, is how many landlords have behaved, and it shows how those who are honestly and sincerely working to establish peace and bring about an amicable settlement, are met. I now turn to another property in Father McFadden's district, a property which about an about 45 years ago produced a rental of from four to five hundred pounds. That rental has now been trebled, and no doubt the holdings are small ones. The Chief Secretary has referred to small holdings, and has instituted a comparison between the occupiers and farmers who live upon these holdings, and English agricultural labourers. But the right hon. Gentleman seems to forget that these unfortunate people have to support themselves with what they can get out of this cold, inhospitable soil. They and their families not only have to labour on these holdings, but for at least three months in the year the men have to go away to work elsewhere, in order to

  279
  get money for the support of their families during the winter. I was particularly struck, two years ago, when I visited Gweedore, and in Father McFadden's church saw about thirty men and three or four hundred women worshipping. I asked where all the men were, and was informed that they had left in order to earn money in the harvest fields in the north of England and Scotland. I went with Father McFadden through the district, and I saw a most revolting condition of things, at a place where unfortunate people who had been evicted a short time before were endeavouring to keep body and soul together. They were living under a few boards; they were warming themselves over one or two lumps of peat; women and children were huddled together, and I saw a few potatoes about the size of marbles. My hon. Friend has expressed himself in terms of great alarm lest the scenes of the famine of 1846 and 1847 should again be enacted in this district. Mr. Tuke, in his description of the famine in Donegal, says that nothing could describe the dreadful condition of the people, many of whom were living on a single meal of cabbage a day, and some were even reduced to eating the seaweed. I fear very much that the Government may be brought face to face with a similar condition of things during the coming autumn. I hope we shall not again witness hundreds of people going to the workhouses, and refused admission. I hope that those who are admitted will not be treated and not be subjected to the same sufferings as occurred during the former famine, when there was no bedding in the workhouse; the people were obliged to lay in rows on dirty straw, half-a-dozen, perhaps, under one rug, and not a blanket to be seen. Sir, that is not a pleasant outlook. The right hon. Gentleman has painted in roseate colour what he thinks are the prospects of the coming autumn; but I think the opinions of hon. Members who know a good deal of this district ought to be held in a little higher regard than they now are. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the protection of the police by the Regulars, and the protection of the bailiffs by the police, and said that extraordinary and criminal things had occurred in the
  280
  course of these evictions. But, Sir, if a settlement could only be come to, if the landlords of the district would only open their eyes to the reasonable demands of tenants—there would be no necessity for dragooning the district. From my own knowledge of Gweedore and Falcarragh, I believe that if the place were surrounded by a wall of brass, and if the right hon. Gentleman placed in it men who were compelled to subsist on what they could get from the land, in two years there would be a raging famine, and two years later there would be a catacomb of bones spread over the district. The people of the district of Gweedore are cruelly oppressed: it is a landlord-ridden district. We have learned from an hon. Member of this House, who sat on a Sub-Commission, that he recommended a reduction of 25 per cent in the rents on the Olphert estate, but his brother Commissioners refused to accede to his suggestion. Thus, the rents have been kept at an inordinate level, and this will explain why it is that this battering ram and all the other methods of attack have been brought into requisition, and why it is that Father Stephens has been taken away from his people, and will probably be kept in durance for some time. You have taken away from these people their guide, the man who could best advise and help them, and you are so treating him because he has been suggesting a remedy for their troubles. And the same is the case in regard to Father M'Fadden. My bon. Friend the Member for South Donegal did not, in the smallest degree, exaggerate when he referred to the condition of the unfortunate people who are now waiting their trial.. I saw these people, handcuffed together, marched on a snowy day through the streets of Derry; I saw-them standing in the dock, and I saw one poor woman with an infant in her arms. The condition of these poor people was as wretched as is possible; yet they all had an appearance of Arcadian simplicity. Father M'Fadden is now removed from the district, and goodness knows what may occur in consequence of his arrest and prosecution. It suits the policy of the landlords, and possibly the policy of the Government, to do this; but I believe the verdict of public opinion will be entirely

  281
  on Father M'Fadden's side. There is no one who deplores more than we do the unfortunate assassination of District Inspector Martin, but the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has himself made the admission that the deceased officer acted with considerable rashness, and certainly nothing could be more rash than the seizing a clergyman by a portion of his vestment, and brandishing a sword over his head in the sight of his congregation. I do not intend to detain the House any longer; but I am sure all right-thinking men wish to see peace restored to that unhappy district; and the only means to secure that is to put an end to the wretched, abominable system of tyrany which at present prevails.
  *MR. FLYNN: The adjournment of the House has been moved on many important subjects, but I know of none of greater importance than the Motion brought forward by my hon. Friend to-night. We are now accustomed on these Benches to the philosophical superiority of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, and questions of the utmost gravity, and affecting the interests of the very poorest of the poor in Ireland are lightly answered by the right hon. Gentleman. He does not deny that in this district extreme poverty exists; all he says is, that for two or three years he has listened to speeches from hon. Members below the Gangway on this side of the House, and he has never yet heard a suggestion as to how the poverty and the congestion of the district of Gweedore is to be dealt with. Sir, it has passed into an axiom of political life, that the Opposition are not bound to put forward legislative proposals, so long as there is a Government in power. At any rate, the way to relieve the poverty of these districts is, not by placing the services of the Crown at the disposal of the landlords, in order to clear out these unfortunate people. Neither is it by authorizing the use of new and improved appliances for the demolition of their dwellings. Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are times when I am tempted to think that Members of the Tory Unionist Party speak on Irish questions with a levity approaching criminality, and I apply an observation that character to their conduct in
  282
  regard to a letter written three years ago by Sir James Caird on a memorable occasion. A letter written by an eminent authority such as he is, and endorsed in sum and substance by a leading article in the Times newspaper, is received as a valuable contribution to the political question of the day. It was also received by hon. Gentlemen opposite as deserving the most serious consideration. The statement was to the effect that, on two-thirds of the holdings of Ireland, owing to the fall in agricultural values, all economic rent had disappeared. Surely, it cannot be denied, if there is any part of Ireland to which this observation of Sir James Caird can be addressed, it is to the unfortunate district of Gweedore, and other parts of Donegal. And yet, in this district, in which, according to this high authority, no economic rent ought to be paid at all, the taxpayers are now being called upon to furnish large bodies of soldiers, armed constabulary, officials of the Crown, and all the paraphernalia of authority, in order to drive these unfortunate people from the homes which they have made, because they cannot pay rents largely in excess of the economic rent. Do the Government attach no importance to-day to that statement of Sir James Caird? If they do, how can they reconcile it with their duty as a Government to eagerly assist, as they are doing, the landlords in their cruel, wanton, provocative, and unnecessary evictions? Every one knows that even if these people are cleared away with the help of the new appliances, the miserable land will be of no value to the landlords or to the country. I do not suppose for a single moment that the hon. Member for South Tyrone would attempt to colonize Gweedore with his Ulster peasantry, but if he does, I am sure he will burn his fingers. What, then, will the Government or the landlords have gained by these proceedings? The debate to-night is a very strange commentary on the Bill we brought in yesterday. I know I should not be in order in referring to that Bill, but allow me to illustrate my position by one observation. We referred to the question of the arrears of rent in that Bill, and we also referred to the fact that tenants were rented upon their own improvements. Now, here are these unfortunate people in these

  283
  holdings, whereon the landlords have never expended one penny, and where if there is any margin of rent over prairie land, it is due to the tenants' improvements. When they went before the Commission, we are told on authority, that although one of the Commissioners suggested a reduction of 25 per cent he was overruled, and the result was that these unfortunate people got no reduction in their rents, and now they are plunged in debt; heavy arrears have accumulated, and they find it impossible to pay them. I see that the champion of the landlords class in this House is eager for the fray, and he is anxious to prove how dishonest these unfortunate tenants are. It is the same old story with regard to these people; they are always in the wrong. If they are unable to pay their rents, they are deprived of their holdings, and charges of dishonesty are lavished upon them. I have no doubt that these Gweedore tenants have the sympathy of the whole of their fellow - countrymen, and I think that my hon. Friend was fully justified in moving the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to this state of things. Neither the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) nor the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Sergeant Madden) has been able to explain away the extraordinary business of these passes along the roads of Donegal. It has been proved in this House that policemen issued permits and passes to Her Majesty's subjects to travel along the highway in the unfortunate, police-ridden county of Donegal. And this was done, not only in the immediate neighbourhood where the murder took place, but in a large tract of country miles around it. Are we living in the 19th century, or are we not? No Member of the Government has tried to explain away this very ugly transaction. The hon. and learned Solicitor (Mr. Sergeant Madden), who is fast acquiring the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. A. J. Balfour), has made several attempts to explain it—but, endeavour as he may, he cannot explain away the fact that men, going about their ordinary avocations, have been obliged to furnish themselves with passes signed by policemen, as if they were travelling in an enemy's country in time of war. If
  284
  such a state of things existed in any other country but Ireland, the whole Press of England would have teemed with denunciations of it. Well, you have these people, on the unimpeachable authority of the priests and other public men, on the verge of the borderland of famine. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) acknowledges that one of the reports say s the potatoes are below an average crop. That is only a euphonious way of saying that they have almost altogether failed. In my own constituency, w here the character of the country is much the same as in the Gweedore district, there is not half a crop of potatoes, and in some parts of the county of Cork they have nearly altogether failed. I am not going to take the right hon. Gentleman as an authority on a matter of which he is utterly ignorant, and with which we are thoroughly acquainted. The House has been told that the stock of Indian meal in many parts of the country is very nearly exhausted, and that the people are on the very verge of famine. Is this a time, then, that these prosecutions are to be launched against them; is this a time to remove Father McFadden from his parish by the present series of extremely suspicious judicial proceedings; is this a time to bring forward and use against the people the newest appliances in the art of eviction? I think the Government, if they realize as they ought the importance of the present crisis in Donegal, will make some effort to meet it by promoting an inquiry into the condition of these poor people.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: This question of distress in Donegal is not a thing of yesterday or to-day. A precisely similar state of things was the subject of inquiry by a Select Committee in 1858. Then 10 priests signed an appeal, which stated that in the wilds of Donegal thousands of human beings were perishing, amidst squalid misery, for want of food and clothing; but a Committee appointed to inquire into the truth of the statement reported that destitution such as was complained of in the appeal did not exist. I went to Gweedore in January last, and that is my reason for taking part in the discussion. That the people are poor goes without saying, but the question is whether there is at this moment excep-

  285
  tional poverty. The hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Mac Neill) had a Notice on the Paper on Friday to inquire into the subject, but he and his Party allowed it to be counted out. The people of whom they have been speaking are not tenant farmers in the ordinary sense of the word at all. They are English labourers with Irish allotments. I may say that while I was amongst them I heard not a single complaint against Mr. Olphert personally. It has been said that the great majority of the tenants are not judicial tenants, but I examined the rent-roll of the Olphert estate, and found that an overwhelming majority were judicial tenants. There was not a single tenant among those evicted in January who had not had a judicial rent fixed, and who was not offered an additional decrease of 10 per cent. A further reduction was offered of 25 per cent upon rents that were not judicial, and I say from what I know personally, that not only was Mr. Olphert anxious for a settlement then, but he is anxious for a settlement now. Mr. Olphert, however, is not willing to hand over the management of his property to the managers of the Plan of Campaign. He is willing that the Land Court set up by this House should fix his rents, but he is not willing that the Land League should fix them. Surely that is a perfectly tenable and perfectly reasonable position for even a landowner in Ireland to occupy. If Members below the Gangway believe that extreme destitution and poverty exist in Donegal—and I am not prepared to challenge the statement that it does exist—I cannot understand why they allowed a Motion for inquiry to be counted out, and now come forward with a simple Motion to adjourn the House, which they know cannot be accepted. When I find that course taken, and the responsible Minister of the Government saying, on the authority of au official Report—which I take to be the Report of the Local Government Board—that exceptional destitution does not exist, I cannot believe that it does. I should not have risen but that I visited the district in January last, and found that the equities were all in favour of Mr. Olphert and against the tenants. If the tenants are suffering, it is not because of any act of Mr. Olphert, but because
  286
  of the advice they have been foolish enough to take from the managers of the Plan of Campaign.
  *MR. H. J. WILSON: I wish, Sir, to make a few remarks respecting what has come under my own notice in the Gweedore district, and illustrating what I believe to be the real truth with regard to the destitution, and how the police are practically mixed up with the cause of the landlords. I ant convinced there is very great destitution in the district of Gweedore. I have seen a number of families there, and I heard from some of them that they had had no potatoes since November. One man told me, with reference to a number of houses, that he did not believe there had been for weeks past a potato among them, and another man told me that there was scarcely any potato seed left except his own, and he was breaking into his stock and taking it away to eat because he was expecting eviction. Some land was pointed out to me where the crops were so bad that it was not worth while to turn over the soil and get out the wretched abortions of potatoes. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary argues that because there were false alarms some years ago, and people did not actually die of starvation, the House is to take no notice of their state of destitution and misery now. Why, the people are living on Indian meal, and even that they are getting partly on credit, and partly by charity, and if a charitable fund which has been established for their relief be not largely increased, many of them will die or will have to go to the workhouse. These people go away to work in Scotland, and come back with a few pounds, which serves, not to buy meal, but to pay for meal that has already been eaten. They are now living on Indian meal obtained on credit. They will go again to Scotland in the summery and when they return with a few pounds it will go to pay the debt. They have also a practice of sending their children of fourteen, eleven, ten, and even nine years of age to be hired out in the Lagan and other more prosperous districts, and when the children come back the £2 or £1 saved from their wages is applied in payment of the debt for the food of the family. There are two men of the name of O'Brien on the Olphert estate, and

  287
  one of them, Paddy, is an old and asthmatic man, who has not been able to work for many years. He lives in a most wretched hovel, to which there is no proper door, and from such a dwelling the man is to be turned out. The other, Dennis O'Brien, is 85 years of age, his wife is over 80, and he has an invalid son 30 or 40 years of age, who has been bedridden for five years. They also are to be turned out. In all directions there is evidence of the way in which the administration of the police is mixed up with the acts of the landlords. At the police barracks I saw posted up Captain Hill's notice to collect his rents. When the final warrants were issued for the eviction of 43 unfortunate people, the landlord, Mr. Olphert, was on the Bench at Falcanagh, though he took no part in the proceedings, and there was a row of stalwart policemen keeping the people back, so that they could hardly see or hear what was going on. If, after eviction, any of these poor people should have to go to the workhouse at Dunfarraghy, they come into the hands of Mr. Olphert once more, for he is the Chairman of the Guardians, and they are very much at his mercy in the workhouse. And I could not help noticing, and being disgusted with, the different way in which witnesses were treated. When Mr. Olphert's bailiff was giving his evidence he sat with his hands in his pockets, lounging back in a chair; but a man who came forward to give evidence on behalf of the tenants, was told to stand straight up. The bailiff could do exactly what he liked, but witnesses for the poor tenants were treated with the utmost strictness, as if they were going through some kind of drill before their superiors. There was, too, an expression of disgust and impatience on the part not only of the solicitor for the landlord, but on the part of the Bench itself, because some people who came forward claimed to give their evidence in Irish. The day before the proceedings at the Court-house the police were scouring the district, with no object, as far as I could see, except to prevent these poor people from taking counsel together or receiving advice from others. Is it only a curious coincidence that these things happened and the battering ram of the police was needed just at the moment when the poor tenants were deprived of the assistance and
  288
  advice of Father Stephens? Captain Hill, besides being the owner of large property at Gweedore, is practically the landlord of the hotel, which is resorted to in the summer time by tourists and sportsmen, but is usually empty in the winter. It is now filled with police officers and soldiers, so that if Captain Hill does not get his rents he gets an equivalent for them in the increased receipts of the hotel. One would suppose that the district must be full of crime and disorder, but, as a matter of fact, these officers were going about alone at all hours of the day and might, with not the slightest apprehension, and, as illustrating the peacefulness of the locality, I may mention that an English resident was in the habit of hanging his letter bag on a tree at a considerable distance from his house, and that the postman took away the letters left there, and put into the bag the letters he brought. My firm conviction is that there is very deep distress in the district, and that the administration of the law is all in favour of the landlord.
  Mr. William Henry Smithrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes 137; Noes 88. (Div. List, No. 72.)
  Question put accordingly, "That this House do now adjourn."
  The House divided:—Ayes 89; Noes 137. (Div. List, No. 73.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY-CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES
  SUPPLY—Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  CLASS I.
  (1.) £9,726, to complete the sum for Lighthouses Abroad.
  MR. MOLLOY: A new system of telephoning has been introduced for the purpose of warning ships in time of fog. I suppose the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Jackson) has read of it in the papers, and I should like to know if he can give the result of any experiments that have been tried.
  THE SECRETARY To THE TREASURY (MR. JACKSON,): I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Member any information with regard to the interesting matter referred to. The administrative authority in this case is the Board of Trade, and I am not in a position to enter upon it.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) £25,040, to complete the sum for Peterhead Harbour.
  (3.) £4,000, to complete the sum for the Caledonian Canal.
  (4.) £148,353, the sums for rates on Government property.
  (5.) £7,500, to complete the sum for the Metropolitan Fire Brigade.
  (6.) Motion made, and question proposed—
  "That a sum, not exceeding £182,559, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, for the Erection, Repairs, and Maintenance of several Public Buildings in the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works, Ireland, for the Maintenance of certain Parks, Harbours, and Navigations, and for Repayments to Baronies under The Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883,' and for the Drainage Works on the River Shannon."
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I propose, as an Amendment, to reduce this Vote by £1,192, the amount devoted to the Chief Secretary's Lodge and Garden. I find there is a considerable amount of expenditure under the Vote not only on the Chief Secretary's Lodge, but on the Vice-Regal Lodge, the Under Secretary's House, and the Private Secretary's house, and that there are items for fuel, lighting, furniture, and and so on. I believe there is a good deal of abuse in this system. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Sir Michael Hicks Beach), who was Chief Secretary for Ireland, and whom I see in his place, will be able to give us some information on this subject, in all probability. I believe that when a gentleman is appointed to the office of Chief Secretary, he has to pay £1,200, or something like it—
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): That was formerly the practice, but it has been abolished.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I am glad to hear that; but that is an additional reason for my moving the Amendment. I did not know the practice was abolished, and thought that in some way or other the amount paid by the Chief Secretary was a set off against the item in the Vote of which I am complaining. It seems that since the Conservative Government came into office—for, I believe, the Liberal Chief Secretary paid the money—the practice of charging the incoming official £1,200 has been abolished; and I believe that during the greater part, of the tenure of office of the present Chief Secretary he has lent his lodge to somebody else. This is not, as I understand it, the object for which houses are granted for public officials. If the Chief Secretary uses it well and good, but surely he should not be allowed to lend it to somebody else. Lending and letting are very much the same thing so far as the public are concerned. The gentleman in occupation is using up the carpets and burning the fuel, and I think we ought to make a strong protest against the system. Perhaps my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Molloy) intends to move a reduction in regard to the expenditure on the Deputy Secretary's house, the Private Secretary's house and the other residences. I do not raise those matters, but I do object to this sum being spent on a house for the Chief Secretary when the Chief Secretary lends the house to a friend. I beg to move the reduction that stands in my name.
  Motion made and question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £181,367 be granted for the said service."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  MR. MOLLOY: Mr. Courtney, the prospect which my hon. Friend has held out of my proposing a reduction is a little too alarming for me, for it would be the first time I had taken part in anything like obstruction, and of course I would not consent to that. Taking the whole of this Vote, I may say at once that I have no objection to the necessary expenditure upon the Lord Lieutenant's house and the Chief Secretary's residence in the Park. In fact, the very presence of the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary in Ireland is one of the reasons in favour of the great question in which we are engaged. While, no

  291
  doubt, a certain amount of expenditure is necessary, if you look at the figures you will be somewhat astonished. Dublin Castle, the residence of the Lord Lieutenant, and the Chief Secretary's house are already built; they are not in the course of erection; yet the amount spent under the different headings on these buildings is £5,300 a-year. I think it is almost absurd to suppose that these buildings require an annual expenditure of between £6,000 and £7,000. These contracts, given in Dublin by the Castle, are to some extent in the nature of a bribe. These contracts are being given to Dublin tradesmen and contractors, and they want not to disappoint them; they want to keep up the good feeling which is supposed to exist between a small class in Dublin and the Castle. Therefore, these contracts are not cut down; they are not supervized. In no other way could you explain the fact of between £6,000 and £7,000 being spent on these buildings.
  MR. JACKSON: I think the hon. Member is wrong about the amount.
  MR. MOLLOY: I am taking the Dublin Castle residences and the Under Secretary's residence; I am taking the batch. I find for furniture, fittings, and utensils the amount of £3,000 spent annually. Surely everyone must feel that that is no more than an extravagance; it really amounts to a fraud upon the taxpayers of this country. The two residences are really only occupied a part of the time, because the Lord Lieutenant, who is a sporting character, does not miss certain opportunities given him in this country for enjoying sport. The Chief Secretary is here nearly the whole year round. His visits to Ireland are so few and far between that he is practically only a short time there. In the two residences, and in that of the Under Secretary, we have £900 a year spent on fuel alone—making a total amount for this set of residences of £8,000. We have drawn attention to this matter year after year, and, of course, we get the same answer year after year. I feel that if the Secretary to the Treasury could have exercised the same control in Dublin which he has exercised in this country, this amount would have been cut down certainly to half what it is now, I would like to know who it is
  292
  that vouches for the accuracy and for the honesty of these figures, because it is quite clear that such an amount as this could not fairly be spent. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir M. Beach) who was in Ireland, will not, I think, gainsay what I have put forward in my argument, that this expenditure is not a fair one. I think we ought not to ask the taxpayers of this country to bear it, unless solid reasons for it can be given by the Secretary to the Treasury.
  *SIR M. H. BEACH: As I have had some experience of these houses, and lived in one of them 4 or 5 years, I will trouble the Committee with a few words on the subject, feeling as I do in a perfectly independent position, because I know nothing of the details of this Vote. But this I can tell the Committee, that there is reason for a very considerable expenditure. The Lord Lieutenant's is a very large house, the Chief Secretary's is a good, sized one, both are old, and both need constant repair. The Under Secretary's house is of very fair size. Then there is the Castle, the Under Secretary's lodge, the Under Secretary's house in Dublin, and the Private Secretary's lodge—altogether, half-a-dozen residences included in this Vote. To the Viceregal lodge and the Chief Secretary's lodge very large and expensive gardens are attached. There is an enormous range of hothouses, infinitely larger than there is any real necessity for. But at the same time they exist, and when these things exist it is very difficult to abolish them, and the cost of maintenance is very great. Of course, on the other hand, the Board of Works make a profit by selling the produce of the gardens, the Lord Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary purchasing such of the produce as they require. That arrangement was first made when the right hon. Gentleman opposite was Chief Secretary. I can only say that, knowing the circumstances of the case as I do, there is need for a very large expenditure; and I believe that there is no extravagance on the part of the Board of Works, because it is necessary on account of the size of the buildings.
  MR. CAINE: As I under. stand, the money has to be laid out because the buildings are somewhat dilapidated. But if you take the money spent on the Viceregal lodge and

  293
  gardens, you have nearly £3,000, which is the interest on £100,000 of capital. It would be very much better to erect a new building, if that is necessary, at a cost of £100,000 than to have this heavy annual expenditure. With regard to the greenhouses and hothouse of which we have heard, I think there would be no difficulty in doing away with them, and thus saving the gardeners' wages and other expenses.
  Mr. LABOUCHERE: Nothing could prove more clearly how desirable it is to grant Home Rule to Ireland than the observations which have fallen from the President of the Board of Trade. He fairly stated to the House what he knew. What did he know? He said himself, "I know nothing of the details."
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The hon. Member has misunderstood me. I said I know nothing of the details of the Vote, but I do know something of the circumstances of the buildings.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: It does seem a haphazard—a happy haphazard circumstance—to have the right hon. Gentleman here, and I shall ask him some questions. I do not say it in any carping spirit, but I am sure the Secretary to the Treasury knows nothing about this matter. In fact, the business is not in his hands; it is in the hands of some official in Ireland. Therefore, my remark holds good as regards Home Rule, although it happens that the right hon. Gentleman does not agree with me in that view. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the large size of these residences. What do I find? I find for the maintenance and supplies and furniture and fittings of the poor Under Secretary's house the sum of £533, whereas the Chief Secretary's lodge is £781 and £286 for precisely the same items. As my hon. Friend behind me says, it is well-known that this expenditure is thoroughly corrupt; it is incurred for the benefit of the Castle; it is the patronage of the Castle. Occasionally, we have seen, Mr. Courtney, eminent Gentlemen who do not agree with us on this side of the House, going over to Ireland and coming back and boasting that they had been received and banquetted by the tradesmen of Ireland. Why, they did all that because of this expenditure. This is the sort of bribe that is given to certain tradesmen who
  294
  are paraded as the wisdom, and the commerce, and the wealth—[An hon. MEMBER: And the culture]—and the culture of the country, and they grow well under it. What a hothouse business is this The President of the Board of Trade tells us that there is an enormous number of hothouses, and they require a large number of gardeners, and so forth. Where does the produce go to? The Chief Secretary for Ireland is very seldom in Ireland, so that it is doubly absurd that we should be called upon to spend thousands of pounds per annum in order to provide him with fruit out of certain hothouses in Dublin. I think the House will be convinced, not so much by the reasons which I have given. as by the reasons which the President of the Board of Trade has given, that it is most desirable that a lesson should be taught to these Gentlemen, and in reducing the Vote by the amount I propose, I am perfectly certain no one in this world will suffer, except some hungry, greedy Unionist tradesmen in Ireland.
  MR. MOLLOY: The account is for new furniture, &c., and this year the amount is £3,000. Furniture is not a thing which breaks down every year; nor is that which is placed in these residences of other than a solid character. It is not made to look well for a year, and then go to pieces. I put it seriously to the Secretary to the Treasury whether this sum of £3,000 for furniture is not in itself absurd?
  *MR. JACKSON: I am afraid I cannot give very mach information as to the details, but I do not admit the statement of the hon. Member for Northampton that I know nothing about the matter.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Is it necessary?
  *MR. JACKSON: I went through the whole of the items of this expenditure, and although the amount may seem to be considerable, it does include a great deal besides what is ordinarily called furniture. It includes the repairs of the fixtures in all these buildings, which contain a great number of apartments, and the whole of the internal repairs are provided under what is called "furniture and fittings." Well then, there are the repairs and renewals of carpets and mattings, &c.
  MR. MOLLOY: Annuallys?
  *MR. JACKSON: I mean such repairs and renewals as may be necessary. Then there is the question of gas fittings.
  MR. MOLLOY: They last for years.
  *MR. JACKSON: I do not know whether the hon. Member looks at his own bills for gas fittings, but if he does, I think he will find that they do not last for years. Then there are all the curtains, and cabinet relics of various kinds —everything connected with a house of that description; and blankets, and bedding, and glass, and china, and washing, and all those items which come under the head of "furniture and fittings." I have gone very carefully over the items of expenditure in previous years, and I would point out that the Estimates compare favourably with those of former years, because there is a decrease of £180 upon the item of the Dublin Castle residences; and there is a decrease upon the Under Secretary's house; there is a decrease upon the Viceregal lodge and gardens; there is a slight increase upon the Private Secretary's lodge, and a considerable increase for some special items connected with the Chief Secretary's lodge in the shape of repairs; there is also an increase on the Under Secretary's lodge. I can assure the Committee the items were most carefully investigated. I had an opportunity when I was in Dublin of going through them with the Board of Works, in addition to which I have had them most carefully examined at the Treasury; and I believe it is the very worst of economy to keep houses at all and not to maintain them in proper repair, because the inevitable result is that you have instead of an annual outlay, a very large expenditure which comes all in one year. Of course it is not my business, that is a question settled before, but if you are to have these residences for these Ministers and officers, then I believe it is really the best economy to maintain them in a condition of efficient external and internal repair.
  MR. CAINE: A great portion of this expenditure has been on gardens and hot-houses. I do not know how much is expended on gardeners employed in the Viceregal gardens.
  *MR. JACKSON: The salaries do not come under this Vote.
  *MR. CHILDERS: I admit the soundness of the general
  296
  view taken by the Secretary to the Treasury, but I do not think he quite appreciates the amount asked. For these Departments in Dublin an expenditure of £10,200 is demanded, and this is an increase upon the previous year.
  *MR. CLANCY: It is interesting to find a Liberal Unionist objecting to any part of the policy of the Government. The hon. Member draws the line at hothouses. No wonder, seeing that the Liberal Unionists have a very considerable hothouse in Birmingham just now. I certainly agree with the Secretary to the Treasury that if these houses are to be retained they ought to be maintained in a proper and respectable manner, but they ought to be maintained by the gentlemen who use them, out of their own pockets. The Chief Secretary gets £4,000 a year, and if that is not enough for a single man he is difficult to satisfy. The Chief Secretary has not only a large salary, but he gets a large allowance for coals. I do not know what he wants with this house at all. He has no wife and family; he has no domestic establishment; he wants no home. I have a record of the right hon. Gentleman's appearances in Dublin. When he became Chief Secretary on the 10th March, 1887, he came to Ireland to be formally admitted to his office; he then immediately returned to England: He came again on the 22nd July, and he stayed one day. He came again on the 22nd of August, and stayed two days; on the 15th September, and stayed four days; on the 16th October, and stayed just about a fortnight, and the 18th December, and stayed 10 days; on Friday,. 10th August, 1888, and stayed eight days; on Saturday, 22nd October, and stayed a week—that is to say, he was in Ireland three months out of a total of 15 months. [An hon. MEMBER: 47 days.] I make out three months, though I may be overstating the matter.. I want to know what the Chief Secretary wants with this house? If I am correctly informed, he did not spend these three months—or 47 days — at the Lodge; he stayed, as I understand, at the Castle. His visits are occasional, like an angel's, though he does not appear very like an angel. If this place was good enough on these

  297
  rare and casual visits I do not see why the Castle apartments should not be suitable for him always. If he was doing any good in Ireland, like other officials not connected with the Castle I could understand the necessity for providing him with a residence there. I am not going into any question of policy. I merely want to show that the Chief Secretary could have executed his business just as well in England as by going over to Dublin. On the first occasion it was necessary that he should go to sign proclamations under the Coercion Act. I believe it is not legal to sign such in London, but his second visit was avowedly for the purpose of authorizing the prosecution of the hon. Member for North East Cork and to make inquiries preliminary to the proclamation of the National League, but there was no necessity to visit Dublin for the purpose. This business could have been transacted from the office in London, and the right hon. Gentleman habitually makes inquiries from London on matters far more important than the proclamation of the League. The third visit was in consequence of the Mitchelstown massacre and the subsequent arrest of Mr. O'Brien. On that occasion certainly the right hon. Gentleman must have regretted his visit, for it was then just as he was coming away that he was served with a writ at the suit of the Galway midwife whom he had libelled in this House, and in reference to which action he with characteristic courage pleaded privilege. The next visit was to order the imprisonment of Mr. Blunt, Mr. O'Brien, and Mr. Mandeville, whose subsequent prison treatment caused the prisoner's death. But there was no need to use the Lodge on this occasion, he could have given his orders from London, and indeed he has habitually given such orders. There was no need for him to make the personal acquaintance of officials in Dublin, whom he habitually mists, whose word he takes implicitly on more important matters; and the Lodge was not needed on this occasion. His last visit was to urge a more rigorous use of the Coercion Act; and it has been observed more than once that when the application of the Coercion Act has somewhat languished, the moment the right hon. Gentleman appears in Dublin there is a recrudes-
  298
  cence of official brutality and persecutions recommence wholesale against innocent and guilty alike. I quite agree with the Secretary to the Treasury that, if the house is to be maintained at all, it must be in a decent and respectable manner; but I say, in the first place, that there is no need to maintain it at all, and next, that the Chief Secretary is provided with a salary sufficient to enable him to maintain it out of his own pocket if the discharge of his duty requires his presence in Ireland.
  MR. M. KENNY: There are several items under this Vote that invite investigation, and on which I am sure the Secretary to the Treasury will give us some information. First, I notice that the renewal of the roof of the Royal Hospital at Kilmainham is to cost £4,000, of which £2,000 is set down in the Estimates for the ensuing year. On this I would remark that it seems an extravagant sum for the repair of the roof of the dining hall. In the second place, I note that the Government have made no provision at all for the conversion of the Royal Barracks at Dublin, although there is an item of £300 in relation to another barrack. Of course I am precluded from entering into the subject, as no Vote is down for the Royal Barracks; but in passing I would. say that is a disgraceful thing to allow a state of things to continue by which soldiers are dying by scores, and not to attempt a remedy. Then, I observe an item in connection with the Albert Model Farm at Glasnevin. There are two sums to be voted towards this establishment, one of £250 for new works in connection with the water supply, and another vote bringing up the whole to about £800, Now, we have each year a balance-sheet in regard to the farm, showing profit and loss, and this gives rise to an impression that there is a considerable profit made, or a considerable contribution made towards the maintenance of this establishment. But is not this a little misleading in view of the fact that here is a sum of £800 asked for for maintenance and extension of buildings? There are besides two other points in connection with the Vote, first £700 for the works on the Clare slob lands. I noticed some time ago an advertisement in a Belfast paper that there was this land for sale, and I should like to know if the hon. Gentleman can give me any

  299
  idea of the total amount of money that has been expended on those lands —they consist of about 12,000, acres I think — and what amount the Board of Works is prepared to accept for the land now. Another important item in the Vote in view of contingent proposals by the Government for the extension of light railways in Ireland, is the Vote for £12,140 as a contribution towards these undertakings. The most expensive one is the Cavan, Leitrim, and Roscommon, with a guarantee of 5 per cent. and £1,800 invested as a contribution from local rates. I would like to understand if there is any probability, near or remote, of these undertakings being able to pay their way. I am sure it would greatly facilitate the progress of legislation by-and-bye if the hon. Gentleman could assure us that there is some probability of these light railway lines being in such a position that the Treasury would be relieved of further contribution towards their maintenance. These are the principal items I wish to refer to, but there is one other I would mention, £485 asked for in connection with buildings for the Royal University. Now the principal portion of these buildings consists of a laboratory for the examination of medical students, some four or five times in the course of the year. For this purpose the expense is about £500 a year. Now there is a vote for the College of Science, and in this there is a much better laboratory and all facilities for the examination of students in chemistry and other branches. If the Royal University Senate, in conjunction with the Government, had a little more sense and a desire for economy, £500 a year might be saved by holding these examinations at the College of Science, and I recommend this for their consideration. It appears to me that an expenditure of £500 for simply examining a few students annually, which examinations could be conducted as well or better at the College of Science, is a gross waste of money. There would be this double advantage in accepting my suggestion, that the College of Science—a first-rate institution—would become better known. The professors would be encouraged, their lectures would be attended, and fees, which are now in many cases prohibitive, would be avoided.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Before the Secretary to the Treasury answers, I should like to ask him for some explanation as to the Vote for the charges made in respect to payments for the expenses of the residence of the Chief Secretary. I understand the Vote is increased by about £200 this year, the total amount for house and grounds being £1,200. We have always understood that it has been a complaint of successive Chief Secretaries that they were compelled to pay charges for maintaining the grounds attached to the lodge, of something like £500 or £600 a year. Has any part of this charge been transferred to the public Exchequer, or has the increase reference to some other payments? Without entering into the question of the length of time the Chief Secretary occupies the lodge, one cannot but observe that the expense of the gardens is very large, and if a Chief Secretary is not able to spend a long time in Dublin, it does not seem worth while to maintain hothouses and expensive ranges and so on to such an extent.
  *MR. JACKSON: I will answer the last question first. I am afraid I cannot quite remember the particulars, but as far as my recollection goes, the charge that was made was in this direction. It used to be the practice that when one Chief Secretary succeeded another, the incoming Chief Secretary took over at a valuation a certain portion of the outside garden implements and property, and this usually involved an expenditure of from £400 to £500, sometimes more and sometimes less. This was felt to be a very inconvenient system, and it was decided that the gardens, plants, and so on, which had been kept up at very considerable expense, were kept up beyond what was necessary. So it was arranged that the Government should take over the charge of the gardens, and that all unnecessary plants should be disposed of, and that the expenses should be very much cut down. Of course, the amounts realized by sales go towards meeting the expenses. As to the Kilmainham roof, the hon. Member is quite right, the estimated total cost is £4,000, half of which is expected to be expended in the coming year. The question was very carefully considered, and it was proved

  301
  conclusively, I think, that the condition of the roof was becoming a source of great danger, and repairs will have to proceed as opportunity offers. The amount asked for this year is not more than will be necessary for the work. The hon. Member mentioned the Royal Barracks, but, as he says, there is no Vote asked for on this account, and it is a question for the War Office, not the Board of Works, to deal with. In reference to the Albert Model farm, I confess my own impression is very much that presented by the hon. Member. The statement of accounts presented every year does not appear to me to convey not a real debtor and creditor account of expenditure and income. I made a good deal of inquiry in reference to the expenditure, and I had the accounts investigated, and came to the conclusion that the cost was extremely high. At the same time I am told that the institution has done a very great deal of good, that, although the number of students is small, the instruction given is very valuable, the teachers are very talented, and the only regret is that the number of students is so small. I am assured that the work is so valuable that it is quite impossible to entertain the idea of cutting down the expenditure. Although it is considerable, we must continue to maintain it in the hope that the instruction given to the students will become a benefit to the country generally, and that the number of students will increase. Then I am asked about the Clare slob lands. The hon. Member says he saw an advertisement asking for tenders, and he asks me what has been the total expenditure. The hon. Member is, probably, well acquainted with the district, and the reclamation work carried on there. I visited the place myself in the autumn of last year and spent some time in company with those able to explain to me the work that had been done. 1t is certainly an enormous work. It has been more or less unfortunate in its history. and the hopes entertained in earlier days of the cost of reclamation have not been realized, but we may hope that we have now got to the end of the expenditure upon the bank which has been built. We hope we may consider it just about completed, though the cost has been more than £150,000, and I am not at
  302
  all sanguine that that amount will be realized by the sale of land.
  MR. BIGGAR: Hear, hear.
  *MR. JACKSON: I know the hon. Member for Cavan takes a great interest in this subject, but I beg him to remember that the decision to build this bank for the reclamation of these lands was settled years ago, and is one for which the Government is in no way responsible. I am only glad to think that the enormous expenditure which has been going on for many years, and which certainly for the last few years, has been an expenditure very grudgingly agreed to by the Government, is now coming to an end. It is only fair that I should say, that although I have seen during my life a good many crops, more or less prolific, I am bound to say that, being there when the harvest was just over, and when the oats were on the ground on adjoining lands, reclaimed lands, and practically I suppose the same character of land as that which has subsequently been reclaimed, I have no hesitation in saying that in the whole course of my experience I never saw so heavy a crop upon any land as I did upon that occasion. There can be no doubt that it is very valuable land. The hon. Member asks me what I expect to realize, but I think he will see that, inasmuch as I am in the position of the seller, I would rather keep that information to myself, and endeavour to find out how much I can get for it. Another question had relation to light railways. Well, I am afraid the charge which is on the Estimates for this year is perhaps only the beginning of what may prove to be a far larger charge in the future; but Parliament has deliberately adopted this principle, and therefore, so far as the Treasury is concerned, we are bound to act in accordance with the Act of Parliament. The hon. Member asks me whether I think any of the lines are likely to pay. I do not quite know what he means, but it will be satisfactory to know that more than one of the Companies' guaranteed stock stands at a considerable premium in the market, and that, at all events, seems to indicate that the security is a good one. Although I do not wish to take too sanguine a view, I do believe that light railways will prove a great advantage to the districts through which they

  303
  run, and, so far as I can judge, there is distinctly a tendency to improve, and I believe that at least three of these lines of railway will, before a very considerable lapse of time, be found much nearer a position of paying than they are at the present time. Then I am asked a question about the Royal University. That is a subject upon which the hon. Member knows a great deal more than I do, but I have made a note of his suggestion, and I will cause inquiry to be made.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (7.) £17,000, to complete the sum for Science and Art Building, Dublin.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask if this is to be a final vote? Expenditure has now been proceeding for ten years. May we suppose that it will conclude in the coming financial year?
  *MR. JACKSON: I have every hope and every expectation that the work connected with the building will be completed in the financial year. In fact, I am assured that the building will be ready for opening in August, but I should not like to say that I entirely accept that statement, but, judging from what I saw when I was in Dublin last, and the representations that have been sub equently made to us, I have every reason to believe that the work will be finished this year.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported to-morrow. Committee to sit again to-morrow.

MOTION.

  SUGAR CONVENTION BILL.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS): I have, Sir, to ask leave to introduce a Bill to enable Her Majesty to carry into effect a Convention made on the 30th day of August, 1888, in relation to bounties on the exportation of sugar. The signatories to the treaty are Great Britain, Germany, Russia, Austria, Holland, Belgium, Spain, and Italy. I think it right that at the outset of my remarks I should contradict the statement that Austria and Belgium are not signatories to the Convention. They are signatories; and the
  304
  only reservation they made was that in 1891 they should have the power, if any European bounty-giving Power were not party to the Convention, to reconsider their decision. The Bill which. I ask leave to introduce is for the purpose of giving effect to this Convention. It ought to be clearly borne in mind that the penal clause of the Convention cannot be enforced by our own individual action. The principal clause of the Convention, which is due in great measure to the suggestion of Her Majesty's Government, provides that a permanent Commission or bureau shall be established for the purpose of inquiring into the whole bounties question and investigating whether any, and which, Powers give bounties; that that bureau shall report to Her Majesty's Government; and that Her Majesty's Government shall then, if they think fit, convene a conference of the Powers, and by the vote of the majority it shall be decided whether the penal clause shall he enforced. This conclusively disposes of the oft-repeated statement that the Convention gives this country the power of boycotting foreign sugar. Those who make this statement appear really to desire to boycott the English sugar industry for the benefit of the foreigner. This boycotting clause, as it has been called, is in reality nothing of the sort. It is simply an agreement arrived at between the bounty-giving Powers themselves and Great Britain for the purpose of putting a stop to a system which imposes on them great financial liabilities, and on us that which is far worse —the destruction of one of our most important Home and Colonial industries. It is indeed absurd to talk cf our boycotting foreign sugar in view of the fact that seven out of the eight great bounty-giving Powers are signatories to this Convention. Reference is often made to the case of America. But America scarcely sends us any sugar at all, and does not produce enough for her own consumption. A Bill has indeed. been passed by the Senate which. enables America to give bounties on production, and that is the clearest proof you can have that she requires bounties to stimulate her production. Bounties given by America have another most prejudicial effect on our sugar industry. At the present moment a large proportion of

  305
  our West Indian sugar goes to America. But what would be the result if America were to apply a portion of her vast surplus in bounties? Why she should no longer require sugar from our West Indian Colonies, and if foreign bounties on the export of beet sugar are to continue the trade of those Colonies would cease altogether. It is said that this Convention is a step in the direction of Protection. I deny this absolutely. Clause 7 contains two conditions, the first of which is that any one of the signatory Powers may prohibit the importation of bounty-fed sugar, and the second that any of the signatory Powers may impose countervailing duties. Her Majesty's Government do not propose to exercise the power of imposing countervailing duties; but Great Britain, as the only free-trading Power, could not object to the other protective Powers claiming this right. But whatever prejudice there may now be against countervailing duties, they have in the past been adopted by this country, and adopted by right hon. Gentlemen of the Party opposite. The anti-bounty agitation began in 1862, and it began as the result of the Treaty of Commerce which this country made with Belgium in that year; in the Protocol annexed to that Treaty there is the following clause:—
  "In the Protocol of the 23rd of July, 1862, annexed to the Commercial Treaty of the same date between England and Belgium, it is rceorded;—'With regard to sugar, the Government of His Majesty the King of the Belgians reserve to themselves to renew their proposition that an agreement should be come to between Great Britain, Belgium, France, the Zollverein, and the Netherlands, for respectively bringing the duties upon raw and refined sugars imported from any one of those countries into the others to an equality with the taxes imposed upon the same production of national origin, and for terminating simultaneously in those five countries the system of bounties on the exportation of sugar."
  As a result of that clause a Conference was held in Paris in 1863, in which Belgium, France, Holland, and Great Britain were represented, and in 1864 the Convention was signed by those Powers. In that Convention appears the following clause—
  "The high contracting Powers reserve to themselves to agree as to the steps to be taken for obtaining the adhesion of the Governments of other countries to the arrangements of the present Convention. In the event of bounties
  306
  being granted in the said countries on the exportation of refined sugar, the high contracting parties will be at liberty to come to an understanding as to the surtax to be imposed on the importation of refined sugars of, and from, the said countries."
  That clause means nothing else than imposing a countervailing duty. The object of that Convention was to prevent bounties by establishing uniform rates of drawback to he paid by the French, British, Dutch, and Belgian Governments on the exportation of refined sugars. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will admit that that Convention could not have been signed without the Members of the then existing Government knowing and approving of it, and at that time Lord Palmerston was the Prime Minister, Lord Russell Foreign Secretary, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is, therefore, a fact that cannot be controverted that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian in 1864 approved of a Treaty, the main condition of which—the only condition indeed by which it could be enforced—was a countervailing duty. I only put this before the House to show how unjust it is to carp at Conservatives for introducing a smaller evil and swallow the greater when it comes from the hands of a Liberal Government. That the right hon. Gentleman approved of this Convention there can be no doubt. The right hon. Gentleman, speaking in the House of Commons on the 15th of June, 1866, he then being Chancellor of the Exchequer, said—
  "About that time (1862) a communication came from the French Government to that of England representing that, without interfering at all with the liberty of each State to levy from sugar for fiscal purposes whatever amount of tax it might think fit, it was very desirable to remove every artificial inducement by which sugar was led to one country rather than another, and that it would also be most desirable to combine with the system regulating imports a reconsideration of the drawbacks upon exports; so that, with regard to imports from countries where refining had taken place, there would be a perfect freedom of trade in the absence of these peculiar inducements. Her Majesty's Government could not but perceive that that would be a beneficial arrangement, beneficial alike to the importers, the refiners, and the consumers. They therefore entered very freely and cheerfully into the views of the French Government. A Conference was accordingly assembled, comprising representatives of England, France, Belgium. and Holland, and, after investigating the whole subject, came to the conclusion that certain things ought to be

  307
  done at once with respect to a modification either of duty or drawback. The provisional arrangements then suggested were all of a character tending to equal trade. Her Majesty's Government, therefore, cheerfully concurred in them, and proposed to Parliament measures which were necessary to give effect to the views of these international representatives at that stage.… There could be no doubt, he apprehended, that Her Majesty's Government were right in entering into the joint conference, because to destroy the barriers which now interposed between different countries in this way was a matter of great importance."
  Well, Sir, I think I am justified in saying that the Convention of 1864, which was for the purpose of abolishing sugar bounties, and contained a clause in favour of countervailing duties for that purpose, met with the unqualified approval of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. Subsequently various Conferences were called in many of the years following that. None of them arrived at any practical result, not from any want on the part of this country of a desire to carry out the abolition of bounties, but because foreign nations, for some reason or another, did not agree to carry the various Conventions into effect. The result of that has been that up to the present time the bounty system has continued. I have often heard in the course of this controversy hon. Gentlemen say that bounties are bad things and ought to be abolished. I suppose they hold that opinion still. At all events, those who appear to be their mouth pieces on the platform and in the Press have repeated that statement ad nauseam. What does that statement mean? Is it merely an expression of opinion of about as much value as a copybook text, such as—" Evil communications corrupt good manners," or "assiduously endeavour to improve;" or has it any real practical significance? Some hon. Gentlemen who seem never tired of repeating that bounties are bad things and ought to be abolished also appear to say that if we abolish them the inevitable result would be to raise the price of sugar. Which of those two statements do they elect to stand by? [Mr. HANDEL COSSHAM (Bristol): Both.] The hon. Member for Bristol says "both." On the one hand he thinks bounties ought to be abolished because they are bad things, and on the other hand he thinks they ought to be retained because they give us cheap sugar. I much
  308
  regret that the hon. Member is not in a position to introduce legislation that would have that double effect. Perhaps in course of time, when sitting on the Front Bench, the hon. Member will favour the House of Commons with a paradox of that sort. But, dealing with the matter on the basis of ordinary common sense, it is impossible to reconcile these two things. Either bounties are had, in which case they ought to be abolished, or they are good, in which case every effort ought to be made to maintain them. Will right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite say they will do everything to maintain bounties? I do not hear a response even from the hon. Member for Bristol. Then they wish to abolish bounties, though they think that by so doing they will make sugar dearer. I do not admit anything of the sort. I do not admit that the abolition of bounties would make sugar dearer, although I think their abolition is necessary, and that they are essentially bad things. It is because the Government have that opinion, because they feel that those bounties press most unfairly on our industry, because they feel that the first duty of an English Ministry is to promote the trade of their own country, that they are endeavouring, notwithstanding the laughter of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, to use every effort in their power to abolish them. I think that the Government have reason to congratulate themselves on one fact—namely, that for the first time the great majority of the bounty-giving Powers of the world have been assembled in London, and by a general consensus of opinion have agreed to the abolition of bounties.. Sir, I do not suppose that anybody in this House, or out of it imagines that we convened the International Conference for the purpose of teaching what hon. Gentlemen opposite consider to be the doctrines of Free Trade to foreign nations, or that we were animated by a philanthropic desire to remove from them heavy financial burdens. We never said anything of the sort. We told them that we thought bounties were an unfair form of competition, and that our interpretation of free trade was fair and unfettered competition; and that, for that reason, Her Majesty's Government would do all in their power to

  309
  prevent the continuance of a system so detrimental to their industrial interests. We might, if we had wished, have simply introduced legislation for that object. We did not. And why? Because we considered that a question of this sort is essentially an international question, and that it is by the voice of the Powers themselves who are most interested that it ought to be decided. For that purpose the Conference met in London. Its proceedings have been distributed to Parliament; the Convention has been in the hands of hon. Members for a long time, and the Bill which I now ask leave to introduce is to enable Her Majesty's Government to give effect to its decisions. The Bill itself is an extremely short and simple measure. It consists only of four clauses, and the whole gist is contained in the first clause. The first clause is simply to enable Her Majesty to give effect by an Order in Council to the decision of the majority of the Powers under the Sugar Convention, prohibiting the importation of bounty-fed sugar, except in transit. But that can only be done after the fact that bounties have been given is established by the decision of the majority of the signatory Powers. While prohibition is in force, sugar coming from any country dealt with in the Order will come under the Customs Act like false coin, pirated books, spuriously marked goods, and other articles of the same sort. The clause further provides for a certificate of origin. Clause 2 simply gives Her Majesty power to make any further Orders in Council for the purposes of the Act, or to revoke or vary them. Clause 3 is one of definition, and Clause 4 is the title of the Bill. The measure is therefore an extremely simple one, and I am bound to say that the Prohibitory Clause is based on a clause in the Merchandize Marks Act, which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield was foremost in supporting. Much of the credit of that clause is due to the right hon. Gentleman, and the clause in the present Bill is nearly a copy of it. I suppose hon. Gentlemen opposite think that although they agreed to prohibit falsely marked goods sold as English goods to the detriment of our English employers and employed, we are
  310
  not justified in any way by parity of reasoning in prohibiting sugar which, coming into this country with an illegitimate. spurious profit, competes so unfairly with our own trade that it has the same effect on our trade as the introduction of goods spuriously marked contrary to the Merchandize Marks Act. If there is a distinction in principle between the two cases, I am at a loss to see it. The Merchandize Marks Act was passed for the purpose of protecting native industry against unfair attack, and the unfair competition of foreign industry.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: It was passed to protect the public against fraud.
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: Yes; but it was also for the protection of the public, and, at the same time, for the protection of our manufacturers and our workmen. If a firm at Solingen can send over to Sheffield a large consignment of scissors and knives marked with the name of an English maker in this country, and can sell them at considerably lower price than they could be manufactured for in Sheffield, by what sort of logic can it be said that the purchaser alone is the person who suffers from that practice? The first persons to suffer by it are the manufacturers and the workmen. I should like the right hon. Member for Sheffield to go down to that town and deny this. Another case in point is in regard to watches sent to this country and sold in cases bearing the English hall mark, which led people to believe that they were of English manufacture. Those watches were sold at a lower price than English watches. But they are now prohibited under the Merchandise Marks Act; and the result is that our manufacturers, as well as the purchasers, are not now defrauded, our workmen engaged in the watch trade have recovered their employment, and an English industry which was nearly extinct has now revived to an enormous extent. We are, therefore, to be congratulated on the good working of the Merchandize Marks Act, which can never be enforced except by prohibitory clauses. That is not only my view, but the view of the great mass of the trade unions of this country. I hold in my hand a resolution from a large number

  311
  of trade unions, representing 423,883 working men, which runs as follows:—
  "That this meeting expresses its gratification that the delegates assembled at the International Conference on Sugar Bounties have unanimously signed the Protocol excluding from their respective markets all bounty-fed sugar; and this meeting, remembering that total prohibition has been found effective in the Merchandize Marks Act, hereby urges the Government to retain the prohibitive clause in such Convention,"
  That is an expression of opinion of those who represent the working classes of this country and are far more able to judge of their wants than even the right hon. Member for Sheffield. I think that, at all events, I have shown in this clause, which I have summarized to the House, that the Government have merely followed the example of another measure, which has been found to work particularly well. But the whole bounty system is fraught with such terrible evil to our trade that I am amazed that those who have the interests of our working classes at heart do not realize the danger in which the country is placed. The bounty system, so far from diminishing, is increasing; creeping up insidiously like a dangerous parasite, it bids fair to sap the vitals of our commerce. The question is one which ought to be treated dispassionately and without Party spirit, and I think the facts I shall give to the House will prove that I am not understating the ease when I say that the bounty system is a source of very great danger to our trade. Bounties are at the present moment largely given on shipping, as well as on sugar. In France bounties are given on the construction of vessels varying from 10f. to 60f. per ton gross. In Italy similar shipping bounties are given varying from 15f. to 60f. Boiler and machine allowances are also given. France grants at present 1f. 15c. per ton in -respect of iron vessels per 1,000 miles, and wooden vessels 1f. per ton per 1,000 miles. Italy grants bounties on navigation at the rate of 65c. per net ton per 1,000 miles. But this is not all. Hon. Members are perhaps not aware that the differences which have arisen and which still exist between this country and France with respect to the Newfoundland fisheries are caused mainly by the bounty system. The following bounties are given. Bounties are given on equipment of fishing boats;
  312
  50f. per man engaged in fishing and curing fish; 30f. per man engaged in fishing without curing, given once each fishing season. Bounties on the catch are given of 12f. to 20f. per 100 kilos. on exportation of fish to French Colonies or other countries. The total bounty is estimated to equal 50 per cent of the catch of the Newfoundland fleet. Under such a system it is impossible for the poor Newfoundland fishermen to compete who have, unaided, to earn their living. And what is true of bounties on fish is equally true of bounties on sugar. These bounties are creeping up, and I venture to predict—I hope I may be wrong, but I am afraid I shall not be —that the time will come when bounties will be given for far other and different things than raw material. The enormous surplus which America now possesses might, if they chose to use it in that way, be given to bounties on manufactures. Her machinery is equal to ours, and she might give bounties on the manufacture of her own cotton goods with the advantage that she also produces the raw material. If besides imposing protective duties America were to subsidize the industries which compete with ours, the trade of Manchester and others of our Lancashire manufacturing towns might be absolutely destroyed. It is all very well for hon. Members to treat this question of bounties lightly. I should like to know what they would say if to-morrow the bounties which are given on sugar were given on textile manufactures, on woollen goods and hosiery? I should like to know what would be the action of hon. Members who sit for Lancashire constituencies, and for places like Nottingham and Leicester where textile goods are made, if we were to learn that bounties were to be given on these goods? Would they get up and say, "By these bounties you cheapen goods and enable British workmen to buy them cheaper?" No, you would have destroyed the British industry and the British working man would not have the money to buy the goods with. He would have no occupation, and we should have conceded to the advantage of the foreigners that which brought ruin to our own countrymen. The argument which has been used against the abolition of these bounties appears to be a

  313
  very taking one, but it is specious, and only requires to be examined in the strong light of common sense for the fallacy to appear. It is said that if we do away with bounties we shall raise the price of sugar, and that all the old women of the country will be unable to obtain it cheaply for use in their tea and coffee. That may do very well for a hustings statement, but it will not bear the test of investigation. Who, knowing anything of the principles of Free Trade, will venture to assert that the opening out of an enormous field of production renders the article produced dearer? Yet that is the principle which hon. Members are supporting. A field of production infinitely larger than that of the Continent is being opened in our Colonies. Australia alone could produce far more sugar than the Continent is now sending, and yet it is said that by opening up that vast field of production we shall enhance the price of sugar. I never heard a more ridiculous argument than that. The people are told that the bounties given by Foreign Powers find their way into the pockets of the consumers—that the £9,000,000 of bounties given on sugar go into the pockets of the British consumer. A more absurd statement was never made. The whole value of the sugar imported into this country is only £18,000,000, and does anyone imagine that we receive half of that amount? The whole thing is preposterous. Those who will take the trouble to investigate will find that nine millions do not represent the export bounty, but include the loss to the Revenue of the bounty-giving country, the result of the difference between the actual and the legal yield of the beet on which the Excise duty is payable. The bounties are given for the promotion of the sugar industry, and are, therefore, equivalent to a protective duty in a new country. The reason why our producers cannot compete is not on account of the low price to which an article is necessarily reduced, but because they know that a portion of a 20 or 30 per cent bounty may when their trade is again prosperous and competing be sacrificed by the foreigner to undersell and ruin them. It is like the case of a trader competing with a rival who has unlimited capital
  314
  behind him. There is a legitimate profit on sugar which our sugar refiners can always obtain, if not unfairly handicapped, and the abolition of these bounties will have the effect of making the foreign refiners sacrifice their illegitimate profits. But it is said that when bounties are abolished sugar will rise in price. Why should it? Does anybody imagine that the sugar growing countries will cease to send sugar to this country, or discontinue its manufacture? Is it probable or possible that seven of the great sugar - producing bounty-giving countries would sign a Convention which meant the death knoll of their business? The fact is, that the great sugar refiners of the Continent will have to sacrifice a spurious profit, and content themselves with the legitimate profit of their business. If the same quantity of sugar were still imported into England as now, I fail to see by what process of reasoning hon. Gentlemen can imagine that sugar would become dearer. I venture to think that when the Convention comes into force sugar will be cheaper instead of dearer. [Opposition ironical cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite cheer ironically, but I will ask them one question. Have they noticed that at this moment the price of sugar is immensely higher than it has been for many years? If, then, we have not cheap sugar when the bounty system is in force, why should we have dearer sugar when it is not in force? The European beet sugar crop for 1888–89, amounting according to the most recent advices to 2,725,000 tons, was the largest on record with the exception of the crop of 1886–87, when it amounted to 2,733,946 tons. Notwithstanding this enormous crop, the price of raw beet sugar was to-day 18s. 1½d. per cwt., whereas on the 1st of February it was quoted only 13s.6d.per cwt., showing a rise of 4S.7½d. per cwt., or £4 12s.6d. per ton, in nine weeks. There is a probability of a further rise in the price. [Ironical cheers.] I suppose hon. Gentlemen oppositemean that cheer in anticipation of the Convention which is to come into force in three years. Well, during the summer months there will be an actual scarcity of sugar, and what are known as famine prices may have to be paid. The imme-

  315
  diate cause for this great rise in the price of sugar is attributable to the great falling off in the imports of cane sugar, which for the first three months of 1889, compared with the first three months of 1888, showed the remarkable diminution of 98,835 tons into the United Kingdom alone. [An hon. MEMBER: Who is your authority?] My authority is one of the first brokers in sugar in the City of London, and the statistics which I give I shall be able to verify. I wish hon. Members to consider this fact—that the sugar which is grown on the Continent is grown all within the same climatic zone, and is therefore amenable to the same climatic influence, so that if the beetroot crop fails, as it has failed before now, the price of sugar must be enormously enhanced. But there is another reason. I remember a short time ago my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was asked whether the Government would do all in their power to prevent what was termed the illegal combination of syndicates. I want to know whether, if you give a monopoly to a certain number of foreign countries, you do not establish the very worst form of syndicate possible? You give them the power to "corner" sugar to any extent, and I have little reason to doubt that a great deal in connection with the high price of sugar at this moment is due to the fact that higher prices are anticipated by speculators. Does it never occur to hon. Gentlemen that it is within the range of possibility that some day or other there may be a European war, and that when that war occurs, by the process of conscription the cultivation of these vast beetroot fields will cease, the ploughshare will again be converted into the sword, and the manufacture of sugar and the import of it into this country may cease, or be immensely diminished, and if we close by our own action or neglect to open our own fields and to develop our own industry and that of our Colonies we shall be wilfully exposing ourselves to a dangerous rise in sugar, which cannot arise if those fields are open? Now, beetroot, which gained at the expense of cane sugar, in the imports into the United Kingdom, gained rather more in proportion than cane sugar in the five years end-
  316
  ing 1882–83, and has gained still more largely in the subsequent five years. The imports of raw cane sugar from British Possessions has diminished in the ten years from nearly 5½ million hundredweight to about 3¼ million hundredweight, or a diminution of 2¼ million hundredweight, the greater part in the last five years. Sugar from beet countries, on the other hand, has more than doubled in amount in the ten years, the increase being from 6,450,000 cwt. raw and refined together in 1877–78 to 13,455,000 cwt. in 1886–88. There is a notable difference, moreover, in the apportionment of this increase in the two quinquennial periods. Between 1878 and 1882 the increase of the imports from beet countries was of raw sugar, the imports of refined rather diminishing. Since 1882 the increase of the imports has only been to a small extent in raw sugar, and the increase of refined in the same period has been over 4,000,000 cwt., or as much as the total imports of refined from beet countries five years ago. In the last five years the imports from British Possessions have greatly diminished, from nearly 5,000,000 cwt. in 1882 to just over 3,000,000 cwt.; and the proportion, which has steadily fallen from 65 per cent. in 1853–55 to 23 per cent in 1880–82, has since further fallen to 13·7 per cent only. I think these figures show pretty conclusively what the effect of the bounties has been upon our sugar cane industry. I trust that when this question comes to be considered calmly, without any party spirit, those who now oppose it will come to the conclusion that the abolition of bounties, advocated for more than a quarter of a century, shall at last be carried out. This is not a new policy; it is a continuous policy, and I will remind hon. Gentlemen that this market will always remain the great sugar market, for the reason that we have no fiscal duties upon sugar. Those duties were abolished by a Conservative Government in 1874. What 1. ask the House to do is to re-open the old sources of supply, to develop new ones of our own, bringing wealth and prosperity to our own shores. Let us give work to the industrious and find work for the unemployed. It is extremely difficult to find work for

  317
  the unemployed, and, therefore, we should be all the more chary of destroying an industry which employs 51,000 men. The figures were given in a Blue Book 10 years ago, and they have never been refuted. [Cries of "Oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen say "Oh!" but I ask them to say by whom and when they have been refuted? [An HON. MEMBER: The Board of Trade.] The Board of Trade simply stated that the number immediately employed in the sugar industry amounted to 4,000 or 5,000 persons. [Ironical cheers.] Hon. Members who cheer show they are utterly ignorant on the subject. It is not alone the sugar refiners. There are those who make the machinery, those who make the boilers, the men employed at the docks, those who make the bags, the casks, and thousands of others. With the sugar industry is intertwined a vast network of industry, and if one portion be destroyed the whole fabric falls. I believe the working men themselves and their Representatives have come to the conclusion that the sugar bounties are disastrous to British industry, and that the great voice of the country will support the Government in an honest and proper endeavour to put a stop to a system which is detrimental to our industry, destructive of the progress of our Colonies, and which is against the best principles alike of political economy, Free Trade, and common sense. I beg to move for leave to bring in the Bill.
  *MR. PICTON (Liecester): The right hon. Gentleman has well said in the course of his speech that this is a subject that ought not to be treated lightly, and he has given very good reasons, indeed, why it should not be treated lightly. He has told us that the system of bounties which he has been considering is not confined to the production of sugar, but that there exist bounties on shipping, machinery, and even on fish. What does this imply? If the Government are obliged to use such violent means as are now proposed in order to put down bounties on sugar, the House will next be invited to put down bounties on shipping, machinery, and fish by the same system; and, therefore, the prospect of a commercial war is opened up, which even the right hon. Gentleman
  318
  will surely acknowledge is wholly opposed to, and absolutely inconsistent with, the great principles of Free Trade laid down by Mr. Cobden. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to make out his case, or to convince the House, he should have proved, what certainly he has not proved, that our industries have been injured by these bounties. Let me allude to the last few sentences of his speech. He says 50,000 persons have been thrown out of employment in connection with the sugar refineries in consequence of bounties. In 1884 there were 5,200 persons engaged in the sugar industry, and this number has since fallen to between 4,000 and 5,000. But it is said that the House ought not to consider those persons only, but the sack-makers, the machinery workers, and also, I suppose, those who made their boots and shoes, their jackets and hats, tables and chairs, and those who brewed their beer as well. There is an obvious fallacy in an argument of this kind, because if machinery is not made for one purpose it is made for another. It is well known to anybody who studies the Board of Trade monthly Returns that our machinery exports are larger than ever they have been before. Then as to the cooper industry. The Return of last year shows that the practice of packing sugar in barrels is dying out, and that sacks are being substituted. The whole of that argument, therefore, falls to the ground. But even if it did not, if we admit the claims of those engaged in the sugar industry, there is something else to be said. In the correspondence of Mr. George Mathieson, of Hackney Wick Works, it is shown how the confectionery industry, which had been enormously stimulated by the cheapness of sugar, employs at least 75,000 persons in this country. They are employed because the confectionery industry has been largely driven to our shores by the great amount of cheap sugar to be obtained here; and yet, in face of facts like these, the right hon. Gentleman opposite speaks of boycotting British industry. But he says I do not want to make sugar dear—I want to cheapen it, by enlarging the field of supply. But how does he mean to accomplish this? By cutting off the largest and richest fields

  319
  whence we get sugar. The six Powers who have, to a certain extent, agreed with him, have only done so on conditions. France has not joined him. Austria has joined conditionally, and so has Belgium; the only Powers who have joined unconditionally are Russia and Germany.
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon—the Powers who have signed the Convention unconditionally are Russia, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Holland. As regards Belgium and Austria, the single and only condition is that, if in 1891 all the Powers have not joined, they claim the right to reconsider their position.
  *MR. PICTON: They join on condition. I was wrong in limiting the Powers to two. If you exclude, as you must, Brazil, and France, as you may have to do, and the United States, some of the largest and richest fields for the production of sugar in the world will be cut off. It is absolutely impossible by any law to compel mankind to use a particular kind of sugar against their wishes, and beet sugar is competing with cane sugar in all the markets of the world. The sugar industry in the British Colonies is not being ruined thereby; there is more sugar than ever produced in them, al. though it goes in increasing quantities to America. The West Indies and British Guiana produced in 1872 166,000 tons, and in 1886 226,000 tons; other Possessions produced in 1872 33,000 tons, and in 1886 210,000 tons. The hon. Gentleman has given no more basis in facts relating to the Colonies than in facts relating to our Home labour for his demand to deprive our own people of cheap sugar. By narrowing the field of our supply we might double or treble the price of sugar. The £9,000,000 of bounties wore given to enable the sugar makers to spread their sugar abroad as widely as possible by selling it at as low a price as possible; and this large amount must have gone into the pockets of the consumers. The House is asked to ignore one of the most important principles of Free Trade, which is that the consumer is the first who ought to be considered, because the consumers exceed the producers a thousand times. It is this that has given us cheap bread and comparatively cheap tea and coffee;
  320
  and I should like the principle to be carried very much farther in regard to articles of consumption. It is this which has enabled our poor people to have house comforts which were utterly unknown to their fathers. But it is not true that the benefit of the principle stays with consumers, for, on the contrary, all the consumers are buyers, and the better they are off, and the more they save in one direction, the more they have to spend in others. Therefore, the nation that first considers the interests of the consumer will always have the largest number of buyers, and will always, by the healthiest process, stimulate all its honest industries. But this is a case in which we are on a wildgoose chase after an impossibility—for it is an impossibility to fight against the obvious tendency of events. I cannot but most profoundly regret that we are invited to enter on a mischievous course of this kind. Of course, I do not rise now to deal with the subject at all exhaustively or at any length, but only to make an earnest protest on behalf of the toiling millions of this country who are consumers, and whose interests, as consumers, ought first to be considered. The most sensible amongst these are on our side; and I know that all these resolutions quoted. have been produced by a mode of agitation which is familiar to some capitalists, and to some officials who have either the interests of a particular trade or the interests of a party to serve. I should like to know very much where the money has come from which has been so lavishly spent in stimulating this agitation? I know that Trades Unions honourably pay the expenses of their delegates to Meetings, Convocations, Congresses, or whatever it may be, and they are justified in refusing to have delegates attending these Congresses whose expenses are not paid by the bodies sending them. But it is known that, as to many of these reported meetings, the Trade Unions have not been called together, and, in one case, a delegate, whose expenses were duly paid by his own committee, came back with half-a-sovereign, which had been paid him at the meeting from some unknown source, and the return of which by him was duly entered in the cash account of the Union. I want to know

  321
  where the money has come from in this case? The money has been spent to enlarge the profits of a few, and this has been done at the expense of the industrial classes of this country. On these grounds I earnestly protest against the introduction of this Bill, and will do what I can to oppose it at every stage.
  *MR. BURT: I am an avowed Party man, but I hope there may be questions that can be discussed without an appeal to party passion, and I am rather sorry that no small amount of Party feeling has been already infused into this discussion. Well, I hope, Sir, that we shall avoid imputing motives and making attacks upon those—whether they are Trades Unionists or others—who may have been associated with this movement. On this side of the House and in this quarter of the House we have had a great many inquiries as to where the money has come from in connection with another agitation, and the production of a balance sheet has often been demanded. Now, I do not intend to go into the matters which my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester referred to in the concluding part of his speech. I desire, however, to express my opinion that a prima facie case has been made out for the introduction of this Bill. I intend to support the First Reading, at any rate, reserving to myself the liberty of voting for any modification of the measure after having heard all the arguments. On the present occasion I should not have risen at all had it not been for the references which have been made to the Trade Unionists. I do not arrogate to myself the right to speak for them—I never have done so in this House; I stand forward now, as I have always done, on my responsibility as a Member of this House, and advocate views which I believe to be sound. But the Trades Unions for a great number of years past have passed resolutions against these bounties. So far back as the Trades Union Congress of 1881 a resolution was passed condemnatory of the bounties, and at the last Trades Union Congress, after the Congress itself concluded, nearly the whole of the delegates remained in the same room and passed a resolution condemning bounties. There have also been
  322
  conferences in London on the subject, and an explicit and definite declaration has, as the Under Secretary for the Colonies has pointed out, emanated from Trades Unions consisting of no fewer than 423,883 members, in favour of the prohibitory clause in the International Sugar Convention. Surely these men would be the last to disregard or to betray the interests of the working classes of the country, They ought to know, and I believe they do know what are the views of the working men. Well, I do not adduce this as an argument to prove, nor do I at all wish to imply, that these men are infallible. They may be mistaken. We are all liable to mistakes, but I should be very sorry if it should be supposed for a moment that they have been influenced in the course that they have taken by the unworthy motives that have already, I am sorry to say, been suggested.
  *MR. PICTON: I suppose that my hon. Friend refers to me. Certainly, I did not impute any dishonourable motives whatever to the members of the Trade Unions. I asked where the money came from, and if any dishonourable motives were imputed they were imputed to very different people.
  *MR. BURT: I, of course, at once accept the disavowal of my hon. Friend. I believe he would be the last man to be consciously unfair, or to attribute to anybody motives of that kind. It is with great regret I find myself temporarily dissociated from those Members with whom I usually act, especially those who are regarded as labour representatives. We do not all take the same view on this question. My hon. Friend the Member for the Wansbeck Division (Mr. Fenwick) is called away by a family bereavement, but he was prepared to vote and speak in support of this proposal. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Abraham) agrees with us. Others take the opposite view. The hon. Member for Leicester has described the Bill as an assault upon Free Trade. I am a convinced Free Trader myself, believing in monopoly or special privileges for no one. But, according to my ideas, Free Trade means that there should be no advantage given to, or any disadvantage imposed upon, one producer rather than another.

  323
  If that is a fair definition of Free Trade, then bounties are quite as much in opposition to it as tariffs, and are more objectionable, inasmuch as they constitute aggressive Protection, while tariffs are defensive Protection. A country imposes tariffs for the sake of giving employment to its own workmen in regard to articles consumed within its own borders. Bounties are imposed to injure the trade, or by unfair means to obtain the trade, of another country. What did Cobden regard as the primary aim of Free Trade? He said—
  "We do not ask for free trade in corn primarily for the purpose of purchasing it at a cheap money rate; we require it at the natural rate of the world's market. Whether it becomes dearer or cheaper it matters not to us, provided that the people of this country have it at its natural price."
  We want sugar at a natural price, and because bounties create an unnatural price we wish to abolish them. The hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth introduces me in his jocose way to his friends as the man who wants dear sugar. I do not at all want dear sugar, but I do want honest sugar. It has been argued that the abolition of the bounties would increase the price of sugar; but Sir T. Farrer, an authority on the subject, has declared more than once that he has doubts as to whether bounties cheapen sugar, or whether their abolition would increase the price. I am opposed to the bounties because I believe them to be unjust. I cannot myself dissociate trade from morality; and it is because this dissociation so often takes place that so many of our industrial and commercial evils from "shoddy" to sweating arise. The question is asked, What will come next? Where will this action stop? That is a Tory rather than a Radical question, and one that was often asked in connection with proposals to extend the franchise. The true Radical doctrine is to deal with every question as it arises; to examine it on its merits without fear of what may follow; and not to be afraid to do what we believe to be right to-day, because we may be asked to do what is wrong to-morrow.
  *SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I rise to make an appeal to the House. We have had most interesting speeches, but the time at our disposal is brief—only 20 minutes before
  324
  discussion closes. This is a question of great importance. We are all, without exception, Free Traders. [" No, no ! "] Well, all, with one exception, but no one is a Free Trader without exceptions. The subject before us will require to be discussed very fully, but what is most necessary is time. The right time to discuss the Bill is on the Second Reading; and, therefore, I hope the House will at once pass the First Reading.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down takes a good deal for granted. It seems to me the question of Free Trade is scarcely understood in some quarters of the House. For my own part, I do not think it possible to allow the First Reading of this Bill to pass unopposed, seeing that it is an upsetting of the policy which has prevailed in this country for the last 40 years. The right hon. Gentleman says bounties are a resultant of the principle of Free Trade. I agree with him, and it is because the right hon. Gentleman has made that admission that I see the immense danger that lurks under this proposal. This proposal is as much a violation of the principle of Free Trade as the Protective system. If the small number of persons engaged in the sugar trade are to be protected, why are all our other industries, which are at least as much affected by the violation of Free Trade principles, to be left without protection? In the woollen, trade of Lancashire and Yorkshire are 150,000 to 200,000 persons affected by the Protective system in all parts of the Continent. Bounties are not the form of Protection from which we suffer most, and there is an enormous compensation in the artificial cheapening of sugar. The right hon. Gentleman is bound to found his case on facts and figures, but he indulged in generalities. He referred to Resolutions passed in the House, and, it was only towards the close of his case,. and then only in the loosest way, that he quoted figures.
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: The figures I gave were those of the Board of Trade.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: The right hon. Gentleman should have informed the House how much of the £9,000,000. was paid on exported sugar, and how much of that exported sugar came to

  325
  England. In reality, the principal share of the £9,000,000—nearly the whole of it—was given to make sugar consumed in this country artificially cheap. We certainly can tolerate the bounty system much longer than the countries which give the bounties; they are impoverishing themselves, and we may be sure the people of the Continent will not tolerate it much longer. I want to see the bounty system and all other protective systems abandoned; but I do not want to deal with this system and leave the others alone. I shall appeal to the working classes and tradesmen—certainly to those of them in my own constituency—with absolute confidence upon this question. If I knew I should forfeit the confidence of the Trades Unionists and lose my seat in the House in consequence, no vote of mine should ever be given in favour of retaliation, knowing as I do the great advantages we derive from Free Trade.
  *SIR L. PLAYFAIR: I will not imitate the example of the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill by making a Second Reading speech. I am, however, very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that speech, for he has thrown down the gauntlet in the most complete way; he told the House that the Government are going to enter on a large policy of general prohibition.
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: I never said anything of the sort, and there is not a single phrase in my speech which can convey that idea.
  *SIR L. PLAYFAIR: The right hon. Gentleman said that this is not a question confined to sugar, and he quoted figures to show that France gives bounties on shipping, as well as fisheries, and said it is impossible that foreign countries can be allowed to injure the working classes of this country in this way. Surely, that is equivalent to saying that the Government are going to enter on a large policy of general prohibition. I see the Chancellor of the Exchequer shakes his head; but that is the logic of the speech. However, I am only going to say that as the right hon. Gentleman has given no facts to show that the restriction on importation and the abolition of bounties are not likely to render dearer an article which is now second only to the bread
  326
  of the people, it will be necessary to traverse the whole policy of the Convention on the Second Reading of that Bill. I hope the Government will give ample time and notice before the Second Reading comes on. The Bill is exciting great interest both in the House and outside, and I shall, therefore, put on the Paper at once, so that its form may be known, the Resolution I intend to move on the Second Reading.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I have only to say, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman, that ample notice will be given. The Government fully recognize the claim of hon. Gentlemen who oppose the Bill, which is an important Bill, to have ample time for its consideration; but I trust the right hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that this Bill has no reference to, and does not involve the consideration of, any other question whatever, but deals solely and simply with the question of sugar bounties. I trust, therefore, that the Bill will now be allowed to be introduced. The Second Reading will be fixed for May 16, by way of intimation that sufficient time will be allowed, and before that date the Government will fix a day on which they will propose to proceed with the Second Reading.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  SUGAR CONVENTION BILL.
  On Motion of Baron Henry de Worms Bill to enable Her Majesty to carry into effect a Convention made the thirtieth day of August one thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight in relation to Bounties on the exportation of sugar, ordered to be brought in by Ur. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir James Fergusson, and Baron Henry de Worms.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 194.]

  SUPPLY [8TH APRIL] REPORT.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [9th April], "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the First Resolution." (See p. 65).
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Subsequent Resolutions agreed to.

  PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT (1855) AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 82).
  Order for Committee read.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to

  327
  insert provision in the Bill to amend the Public Libraries (England) Acts, 1855 to 1887.—(Mr. Herbert Gardner.)
  Bill considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 163).
  Considered in Committee; Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
  REMOVAL OF WRECKS ACT (1877) AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 3).
  Considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  CRADOCK WELLS CHARITY.
  *MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Sir, I beg to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to withhold her consent to the Scheme for the Management of Cradock Wells Charity in Cardiff, now lying upon the 'Fable of the House."
  In pursuance of my custom or policy, which I shall not cease to follow so long as I have a seat in this House, I take this action uninfluenced one way or other by the locality which any scheme may affect. Before I gave notice of this opposition I had no communication, direct or indirect, with any opponent of the scheme. I oppose the scheme on principle and on its merits. I Lave always opposed similar schemes, no matter what locality or what endowment they might affect, because I object to the policy of the Charity Commissioners, a policy which has been described in this House as a robbery of the poor. I have adopted that description because I believe it correctly describes the course which the Charity Commissioners have adopted during the past twenty years, by which the rights and privileges of the poor have been taken away. I am quite sure that were similar demands to be made in regard to the possessions of other classes of the community, those demands would fail; and it is because the class affected are the most helpless in the community that the system of spoliation has been carried on so successfully for years past. A Session or two ago I brought forward a case which
  328
  is typical of a large number of cases of schemes of the Charity Commissioners, including the present one. That was the parish of Sutton, which has had £32,000 taken away from the possession of the poor in order that the middle classes and the well-to-do classes might enjoy higher education at half cost. To me it seems a proceeding that cannot be defended either on the ground of justice or morality. But, bad as the cases have been which have been brought before the House on previous occasions, I hold that the present scheme dealing with the Cradock Wells Charity is more flagrant than almost any I have examined. I will in the fewest possible words explain to the House the nature of the Charity, and then proceed to show what the scheme of the Charity Commissioners is. Alderman Cradock held certain properties composed of lands and houses for the education and "bringing up"—a very expressive phrase of "so many poor boys and girls as shall be named yearly, and from time to time by the trustees, the trustees being certain members of the Corporation of the borough, and meaning that as many poor children should be dealt with in this manner as the funds would permit. These poor children were to be instructed to read, write, and cypher, and I would ask the House to notice here that the excuse which the Charity Commissioners as a rule give for taking away these endowments is that the Grammar Schools of old were intended for all classes of the community, and not for the poor. But in this case they had not that excuse, for there is no question of any Grammar School at all. It is a question of paying the school fees of certain poor children, and giving these children other advantages. They were to be clothed in a distinctive dress, no doubt, and there would be objections to that dress; but I am not here to oppose any reform of any kind, and if it is necessary to alter the trust well and good. We have foundations in our time, nevertheless, where those who enjoy the benefits of the foundations are dressed in rather a grotesque fashion. From 1792 the Charity was neglected; the rents were partially misapplied, and in some cases were not collected at all. In 1819 a Petition was presented to the Master of the Rolls praying for the

  329
  matter to be seen into, and the mal-adminstration of the Charity to be corrected, and that the Master of the Rolls issue a scheme for the encouragement of the Charity. ["Divide!"] The hon. Member behind me would, perhaps, do well if he would bear in mind that we are dealing with the privileges of the poorest class in one of our large towns, and if it is of no importance to him, I can assure him that it is of very great importance to some hundreds and some thousands in the borough of Cardiff, whose lives was not too sweet, and who have not got too much of this world's goods to warrant what they have got being taken away from them. The Master of the Rolls listened to the Petition and issued a scheme in 1821. It was not for education only. It is stated that there should be a sum not exceeding a moiety for teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic to poor boys and girls; and here I would remark that, different from most schemes and most bequests, the word "poor" goes through the will and extends through the order of the Master of the Rolls. It is always "poor girls" and "poor boys." There is no sum set aside for building schools; it is for simply paying foes to the National and other schools which existed at that time. A part of the remainder was to be spent on clothing and the purchase of books and other necessary articles. And then there was another portion, such portion as was thought fit to be applied to the second step in life—either to apprenticeship, purchase of clothing, or otherwise, for such of the said poor children as may be selected." That means simply that the poor boys and girls of Cardiff, as far as funds will admit, were to be assisted in getting on in life by education, clothing, and apprenticeship, and other means generally for their benefit. I have here the original bequest, and in 1821 there was what I call a solemn re-dedication of that property for certain well-defined purposes. And I think that should be regarded by this House as a sacred trust, because it was entrusted to the local authority to carry out—a body in whose hands we have always thought the privileges and benefits of the people were secure. But now, what is pro-.posed to be done? I have shown shortly
  330
  what it was left for. What is going to be done with this property under the scheme of the Charity Commissioners? First of all there is a sum of £800, or one half of the net income, to be applied to the general purposes of the college at Cardiff. It is quite true that that is subject to certain conditions given in the Schedule, those conditions being that there should be a number of scholarships of £20 each, to be paid by the college, and that lecture fees, &c., should be free. These scholarships are to be won by children of not more than 18 years of age in one year, not more than 19 in the next, and not more than 20 in another year, and they are confined to children who, while under the age of 13 years, have been not less than two years in some public elementary school. Now, that is the compensation which the poor children of Cardiff are to get for being deprived of this property, which gives them free education and other advantages. I will now point out to hon. Members how visionary this is. I, as Governor of one of our largest Foundations in the country, know very well by whom and by what class those scholarships are carried off. They are rarely carried off by the poorest children — such children as Cradock Wells and the Master of the Rolls would consider as poor. I am glad to find that the public elementary schools of this country are being used more and more by the middle classes; and it stands to reason that the poorest class will have no chance of winning a scholarship by competition and examination against those who have the advantages such as the middle class and lower middle class possess. Well, that is not all. There is another provision, a further endowment, to be provided for. After having taken this £800 a year, one-half of the net income, the remainder of the income is to be set aside and to accumulate until there can be a new school founded in Cardiff for the purpose of higher education. That is under the 28th Clause; so that you see the poor children of Cardiff have the whole endowment, without any exception, taken away from them in order partly to endow the College of South Wales, for the general purposes of the College, subject to these scholarships, and the remainder of the net income is

  331
  to be accumulated until a high school can be established in the town. Under the 27th Clause it says that only a high-class school shall be established. There is a sum of £200 to be spent in scholarships in schools already existing. Now, Sir, I have nothing to say as to the merits of these scholarships. All I know is that if they are to be provided they should be provided from some other source, and not carved out of the inheritance of the poor. The fact is that these scholarships are simply put into the scheme as a gloss to give an air of decency to what is a scheme of spoliation. By the 29th Clause of the Act of 1869, under which the scheme is framed, the Charity Commissioners have power to continue the endowment in its present form, modifying it as they choose as regards administration; but by the 30th Clause, under which the Charity Commissioners have confiscated hundreds of thousand of pounds of the property of the poorer classes, it is provided that apprenticeship fees and moneys for advancement in life shall come under the bead of education, and that in any scheme relating to such endowments due regard shall be had to the educational interests of the persons of the same class of life or resident in the particular area as those who, at the commencement of the Act, are benefited thereby. I maintain that this clause has been violated by the scheme. The clause was intended to secure the benefit of the endowment to the poorer classes, to whom the original bequest was made, but under the scheme there is scarcely a single child who will be benefited of the class that the Master of the Rolls would designate as a poor child of Cardiff. Hon. Members who cry "Divide" are impatient. They are in the habit of bringing forward Resolutions asking the House to consider the condition of the poorer classes in large towns, and I want those who are always so willing to support Academic Resolutions in favour of the poorer classes—I want to ask them when it comes to a practical application of their own views, to say whether they are ready to Vote away £1,600 per annum, which is money that was left for the benefit of the poor children of the borough of Cardiff. I want to see what difference there is between profes-
  332
  sion and practice. Here is a case in. which the poverty of a large town might, at any rate, be somewhat alleviated. In one of their Reports the Charity Commissioners say their sole object is to promote the interests of the founders of charities, and they refer to the purely remedial and protective character of the jurisdiction of the State. That paragraph seems a fine piece of irony when read in, connection with this scheme. That the governors of the College themselves are aware that the money is to be paid for the general support of the College is shown in the printed statement of their case, in which they state that one of the reasons why the money was voted was that there is an honourable understanding between the Town Council and the authorities of the College. But I maintain that no trustee has a right to vote away the money belonging to the poorer classes. And as a proof that they look to this money for the maintenance of higher education, they say that if these obligations are not fulfilled a diminution of efficiency or an increase of fees must be experienced, because with such a small endowment it is impossible to provide higher education at a rate of payment that will bring it within the reach of the poorer classes. Now, I believe that the honour of Cardiff is involved, and I believe that it will be a blot upon its great educational institution if it is supported by funds taken from such a source. I need not say I am in favour of higher education of every kind, and have been alt my life; but I object to its being supported out of the inheritance of the poor. I have here a letter from a gentleman at Cardiff, in which he says—
  "I am sorry that this, the taking the funds of the poor, has been more easy of accomplishment because those who on ordinary occasions are the mouthpieces of the poor have been tempted to remain quiescent or in fact to support a Scheme for the benefit of the class in which they move, and they, therefore, allow their better nature to be lured into perpetrating as monstrous a robbery as was ever perpetrated by the most notorious highwayman."
  In 1887 the mayor presided over two-town's meetings, when resolutions were carried against the scheme. There have been petitions within the last few days signed by 10,000 adults against it, and there is a general feeling existing in the town in opposition to it. I can.

  333
  not help thinking that if the Welsh Members had not had their views rather obscured by the establishment of the College they would see that there is something unfair in the scheme. If it becomes operative the poorer classes will have to go through the ordeal of having their fees remitted practically as paupers, or they will be summoned for their fees, or they will have to make great sacrifices to raise the money, while at the same time they will see in Cardiff a great educational institution maintained partly by funds belonging to them, and which, if they had the enjoyment of them, would have saved them from their difficulties. I trust that the Government will be neutral with regard to the scheme, which is that of the Charity Commissioners—a body which is subject to no jurisdiction but that of a Vote of this House. Last year the Government allowed the Dauntsey scheme to be defeated, and the result is that the benefit under the new scheme will be largely increased. I hope to-night that the example will be followed or the scheme withdrawn. My right hon. Friend, (Mr. Mundella) has more than once taken me to task for the part I have taken in dealing with these endowments. I remember once he described me as an old Tory. I am no stickler for terms, and if Radicalism consists of advocating academic resolutions in favour of the poor, and voting against practical relief for the poor, I shall not stick for terms. I shall vote for measures not men. I shall continue to oppose every one of these nefarious schemes, the victims of which are the helpless and the poverty-stricken. During the last 150 years the poor have been deprived of their lands, and we have gone a long way towards depriving them of their endowments. By passing the scheme before the House we shall be depriving the poor of Cardiff of what is really their property, as much as the property of any other class is theirs.
  *SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: I have found that the hon. Member who has just sat down has always consistently opposed those schemes. He has dressed up the present scheme in such a garb that if its parents met it in the street they would fail to recognize it. This discussion is
  334
  a most important one, and I may go so far as to say that if the House is to reject this scheme, it would be far better and far more practical for it to consider the advisability of repealing these Acts altogether, because, if ever there was a scheme which came exactly within the scope and intention of the Acts, the present scheme does so. The Acts to which I refer are founded on the Report of the School Inquiry Commission, in which they say the main object of the founders of endowed schools is, in the judgment of the Commission, not so much to benefit particular classes or localities as education. There was a Committee which sat on the question of charitable trusts, and reported that the evidence before them tended to show that such dissatisfaction as then existed towards the action of the Charity Commissioners was in respect of their declining to give funds for the promotion of primary schools. A Committee of this House was appointed in consequence of that very report, and specially dealt with that question of "robbing the poor," and that Committee reported that the object of the Charity Commissioners was the provision of educational advantages to the poor of a character not accessible to them under the ordinary law; that scholarships and exhibitions were founded; and, in the opinion of the Committee, the main design of the-founder was thus reasonably attained. That Report is only two years old. The policy of the scheme is that which was approved by this Select Committee. Let me give the origin of the endowment. It began in the year 1714, and was of the annual value of £20. In 1801, when the first census was taken, Cardiff had a population of 1,800. Now it has a population of between 120,000 and 130,000. The annual value of the endowment now is £1,600. The scheme deals with only £1,000 per annum. The rest of the money is to be allowed to accumulate for the foundation of an intermediate or secondary school. Of the £1,000 a sum of £200 is to be devoted to scholarships of from £3 to £10 for the education of poor children who have been not less than two years in an elementary school where the fees have not been over 6d. a week. The other £800 a year is that paid to the University College at Cardiff, and is to be ap-

  335
  plied to fifteen exhibitions of £20, with an exemption from payment of lecture fees, which meant another £10 a year; thus a sum of £450 a year is to go to the endowment of the College for the direct benefit of the poor children of Cardiff who have been not less than two years in an elementary school. Therefore, it will be seen that the huge edifice which had been raised about the robbery of the poor of Cardiff is not founded upon facts. There will be a balance of £3;0, and this will be devoted towards the maintenance of the University College at Cardiff, which will give education which cannot be obtained at less than £30 a year in the London University College, and, therefore, this sum for maintenance is to be defended. I venture to assert that it is utterly impossible, when the scheme is looked at, to say that it robs the poor. This House should either at once repeal these Acts and say they are destructive of the cause of education and an injury to the poor, or unanimously support such a scheme as this. The opposition which has been evoked by the scheme the most tortuous and curious I ever knew. I agree it is a mistake to force on any locality a scheme which is not looked upon with favour by the persons residing there. This scheme was published in the autumn of 1887 and sanctioned by myself on the 16th of December, 1888. When the scheme was first published the Ratepayers' Association sent up a series of resolutions to the Charity Commissioners as to how the charity should be dealt with. They suggested that apprenticeships, exhibitions, and scholarships should be established by this endowment, tenable at the South Wales College. And that is the very proposal embodied in this scheme. If it was good for the ratepayers in 1887, why is it not good for them in 1889? The scheme is founded on the lines provided by the Act, and I deny that it is a scheme of robbery. On the contrary, it is one of enormous benefit to the future education of the poor of Cardiff. I sanctioned it on my own responsibility and I asked hon. Members to consider it on its merits. In my judgment a better scheme under the Act has never been framed, and if the House reject it, not only will they deal a deadly blow to the Acts of Parliament under which it is framed, but
  336
  to the future welfare of the poorest of the poor among the working men of Cardiff.
  *MR. J. M. MACLEAN: I deplore the circumstances under which this matter has to be discussed. These schemes of the Charity Commissioners are placed on the Table at a late hour of the night, and instead of being discussed in different stages, like other business of the House, we have to settle once and for all whether the scheme is to be approved, and that before Members have really had the opportunity of making themselves acquainted with its merits. I am willing to bear witness to the patience shown by the Vice-President of the Council in listening to objections against the scheme, and I know that he refrained from giving his consent to it last autumn until he saw whether there was opposition to it from the town of Cardiff. I think, however, the right hon. Gentleman has underrated the strength of the local feeling now developed against this measure. There have been petitions presented, one of them bearing the signatures of nearly 10,000 adult persons; there has been a Resolution from the Board of Guardians, and a Petition from the managers of all the voluntary schools and the Roman Catholic and Church of England schools. The Catholic priests and the Church of England clergymen have denounced the measure as antagonistic to the interests of the poorer classes of the community, and in other ways there has been a great demonstration of opposition to the measure in the borough of Cardiff. It should be borne in mind by hon. Members that this is a bequest left for the benefit of the pourer people of Cardiff. I can understand that the Members representing Wales as a whole wish to see the scheme carried out, because their constituents will participate in the benefit of the endowment. It has been said that a bargain was made at the time the University College of South Wales was founded that so much of this money should be given for the use of the college. But who had authority to make a bargain of that kind? If it was done by the Members of the Town. Council, who were the trustees for the Cradock Wells Charity, then the con-

  337
  tract they made is an immoral one, and ought not to be sanctioned by Parliament. These are the main points which I wish to urge in support of the Motion brought forward by the hon. M ember for the Bordesley Division. It is perfectly clear that the Vice-President seems to have misunderstood the matter. He spoke of this college as though it were for the purposes of Cardiff alone. But it is a national college for all Wales, and we are going to admit all the population of Wales to the benefit of charity which was left for the poor of Cardiff. That is an appropriation which ought not to be sanctioned by this House. One of the most shameful pages in our history has been the spoliation of the poor by the upper classes. I think after what has been said by the Vice-President of the Council, that the Government wish to put no constraint upon the votes of Members—that hon. Members may fairly consider this question on its merits, and, not through any generous feeling, but from a sense of justice, declare that the endowment which was left for the benefit of the poor of Cardiff, and for their benefit alone, should not be taken away from them and appropriated to other purposes.
  SIR E. J. REED: I should be very, very sorry, Sir, if this House were to infer from the speech we have just listened to that there is any widespread opposition in Cardiff to this scheme. The constituted authorities, the Corporation of Cardiff, the School Board, and the governors of the charity themselves are all in favour of the scheme, and the circumstances under which it has been opposed and petitioned against have been of a very remarkable character. I am sorry to say that my hon. Friend who has just spoken is very intimately and closely associated with the most active spirit of the opposition, who happens to be the editor of the local paper, and who, after participating in committing the honour of the town to the proposals embodied in the scheme, has, for some purpose best known to himself, conducted a strong opposition against it,
  338
  and when this sort of thing is done, when there are a great many statements made about the poor being robbed, and petitions are being presented at the corners of streets, and every means resorted to for securing signatures, I think the House will be able to appreciate the difference between agitation of this sort and the deliberate opinions pronounced by deliberative bodies in the town in favour of the scheme. I should be slow to express any objection to the general line of action taken by the hon. Member for Bordesley. I think he has done a great public service in watching every one of these schemes, and taking all the pains he can to prevent any diversion of money left to the poor. But I am at an entire loss to understand how the hon. Gentleman's mind has worked in connection with this case. What is the actual situation? A couple of centuries ago a gentleman left a small amount for the purpose of securing to certain poor children instruction in writing, reading, and ciphering. I challenge hon. Gentlemen to say that there is anything in the will stating that the bequest is for any other purpose. I am afraid that the case has been a little prejudiced by the extreme feeling shown in a certain quarter of the House, and I must say I have listened with regret to some of the expressions used. I hope the question will not be prejudiced by them. Every poor child in Cardiff, as in every other great town, is now provided with instruction in reading, writing, and ciphering. Not free, certainly, but free in a sense, and, if poor, they are freely admitted to the instruction. As the representative of Cardiff, I should be very sorry to stand here in favour of a scheme which deprived the poor of the town of any right. The Vice President of the Council has been good enough to suggest that he does not care for my own status, but I do hope that this case will not be used for the purpose of overthrowing a course of action which has been taken by successive Administrations, and the justice of which I firmly believe in myself.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am quite sure the House will thoroughly appreciate the admirable spirit in which the hon. Gentleman who last spoke has couched his remarks, and will pay the attention due to him not only on his own account, but also as representing the borough chiefly concerned in this matter. For my part I am prepared to take, without exception, his statement as to the state of local feeling. But apart from the question of local feeling, we have in considering the merits of this scheme to decide whether the House approves the principle of the Act of 1869 literally carried out in those educational schemes. If the Act of 1869 is to govern all these schemes, why did the Vice President oppose two schemes during the course of his Administration on precisely the same grounds on which we ask for the rejection of this scheme—namely, that they appropriated funds which were intended for the benefit of the poor fox the benefit of the higher classes? When the Act of 1869 was passed, it did not seem to enter into the minds of the promoters that by the course they were taking they would be doing an injustice to a large class of the population. Since then attention has been called to the matter, which has been the subject of agitation throughout the country, and I will undertake to say now that if the principle of these Acts were submitted to the country, you would find a total change in public opinion on the subject. My first answer to the right hon. Gentleman is this: I do object to the principle of the Act of 1869, and I object to every scheme which, in accordance with that principle, takes any fund whatsoever from the poor, fox whom alone it was intended by the founder of the charity, and applies the money to the education of the upper and middle, and lower middle classes. ["Divide!"] I assure my hon. Friends below the Gangway they will only delay the proceedings by their interruptions. Now I come to the special circumstances
  340
  of this case. Supposing we were agreed as to the principle, is the principle I have laid down violated in this particular scheme? The Vice President says it is not. Let me ask the House to consider the figures. Here is a fund of £1,600; £200 goes for scholarships, in connection with the higher elementary schools, £300 goes for 15 scholarships tenable at the college, and £150 goes for the fees of those scholarships. That makes a total of £650; and what becomes of the other £950? In any case the poor are robbed of that; and as for the £650, which nominally is devoted to them, the benefits of that sum are really enjoyed by the children of small shopkeepers and others, who are really above the poor, though attending the elementary schools. A short time ago I had a conversation with a Charity Commissioner on this subject, and I challenged him to point to any scheme recommended to the House by the Charity Commissioners and successive Vice Presidents in which funds have been appropriated to scholarships which were intended to be held by the poor, and to show that in after years it was the poor who benefited by them. He was unable to do so, and I defy anyone to do so now. It is the old fable of the Stork and the Fox. It is no use putting aside scholarships for the poor if you know that hereafter the poor will not be able to earn them. As a matter of fact, these scholarships always fall into the hands of the better educated and richer classes. Turning to the local circumstances in this case, let me say I can understand the interest hon. Members for Wales take in the scheme. They would have us believe they support the scheme upon its merits; but their support of it is due to the bargain the people of Cardiff made some years ago in order to obtain the location of the South Wales College in Cardiff. For that location they undertook to make over this Charity for the benefit of the College. [An HON. MEMBER: With the consent of the Government.] Yes; but it is the Government which have made the scheme necessary. The Welsh Members support the scheme because of their great and legitimate interest in the New College of South Wales, but I ask the House not to let this College, which is going to be of the greatest possible advantage to Wales,

  341
  begin with a wrong step. Do not let it be erected on what, after all, is the inheritance of the poor, and what does not belong to the people the majority of whom will be the beneficaries of the College. I cannot help thinking that the people of Cardiff have sold their inheritance for a mess of pottage. If the interest of Cardiff is to be considered in the matter, if the College is not to be obtained on any other terms, I do not say it would not be worth the while of the people of Cardiff to sacrifice this income, which belongs to the poor, but I maintain the people who gave up this income had no right to give it up. I ask the House to put aside the peculiar local interest which has been represented by the cheering we have had to-night, and to answer the general question. I ask this Parliament whether it is going, by adopting this scheme, to follow the example which, I am sorry to say, has been set by many Parliaments before—once more to give up an endowment which belongs to the poor, and hand it over to people of a better class of life. Would you deal in this way with this endowment if it belonged to any of the professions? Suppose it bad been left to the medical profession, would anyone have consented to hand it over to the legal profession? If you would not hand an endowment from one profession to another, why hand an endowment from one class to another, and hand it from a class which, by necessity, is least represented? The continual surrender of these endowments for the purposes of higher education has been bitterly felt by the poorer people throughout the country. I believe it is most unpopular, and I hope that even now, in spite of the strength of the support this scheme has from both Front Benches, the House will determine to reject it.
  MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMSrose in his place and claimed to move "That the question be now put"; but Mr. Deputy Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that question.
  *MR. MUNDELLA: I know the whole history of this scheme, as I was one of the arbitrators selected by the South Wales people to decide on the locality of the
  342
  South Wales College. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) is evidently most imperfectly informed; he is in the same position as the Mover of the Resolution; they are both exceedingly ill-informed as to the scheme and the attendant circumstances. They talk about robbing the poor of Cardiff. My right hon. Friend says Cardiff has sold its inheritance for a message of potage, and speaks as though the establishment of the University College depended on this scheme, whereas it has been in full working for five years or more. I hope the House will take this matter into its serious consideration. I trust they will not decide the question upon any Party issues, but in the interest of the poor in the interest of the children of the poor, and in no other interest. I am sorry my right hon. Friend the Vice-President did not put the question a little higher than he did, because he knows very well that if this scheme is rejected, we might as well send the Charity Commissioners about their business. [" Hear, hear."] You approve of that, then you ought to dismiss the Vice President of the Council, because this is not the scheme of the Charity Commissioners but of the Government. It is shabby to put the responsibility for the scheme on the Charity Commissioners instead of upon Her Majesty's Government. When I sat on that Bench, I always took the responsibility for these schemes, and they ought to be prepared to take the responsibility for this scheme. I should be sorry if anything my right hon. Friend said injured this scheme, which is calculated to be most beneficial to the people of Cardiff. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham said he objects to every scheme which applies the property of the poor to the uses of the upper and middle classes, and then he went on to say this did so. First of all, he said that £200 is to go to scholarships for higher education. What is the higher education pro-

  343
  posed? It is taking children from the lower elementary schools in Cardiff over 10 years of age to the higher elementary schools. Clause 27 provides for the setting apart yearly of a sum of not more than £200 out of the income to be applied to scholarships to be tenable for such period as the governors think fit at a school in Cardiff known as the Higher Elementary School or any other like public elementary school in Cardiff. Now, my right hon. Friend says that we know very well that the poor will not get these scholarships. Sir, I think he is entirely mistaken, for the brains of the children of the poor are just as good as the brains of the children of the shopkeepers, to which class he seems to fear the benefits of the Charity will go. My right hoe. Friend near me, who presided over the Select Committee which inquired into this subject, says the Committee found there were hundreds of poor children who were capable of taking such scholarships as sthese.
  MR. STAVELEY HILL: I was a member of that Committee, and I must say that the finding of the Committee was directly in the teeth of that assertion.
  *MR. MUNDELLA: I have my information on the authority of the Chairman of the Committee, and the report records the names and addresses of the children. Personally I know that we have higher elementary schools in the town of Sheffield, and I am well aware of the class of children who have won the scholarships in those schools. So also is the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, as he recently distributed the prizes there. The winners of these scholarships have been poor children, some of them among the poorest of the poor. If to raise the children of the poor to a higher scale of intelligence, if to provide the educational ladder for such of them as are endowed with natural gifts is to be called robbing the poor, I say it is an abuse of language. I call it raising of the poor. And now let me say a word as to the grant of money to be
  344
  made to the Cardiff College. That college is not doing merely University work, but it has established an excellent system of night classes, together with the teasching of mechanics, engineering, mining, and subjects applicable to the industries in the immediate neighbourhood; it is for the benefit of the whole people of Cardiff, therefore, that the money should be given to the support of the college. It is true that £600 of the income of the charity is still unappropriated, because, as yet, the fund is not sufficiently large to establish an upper class school; but I am quite sure that when the scheme comes out the Charity Commissioners will do in this case what they have done in others—they will appropriate scholarships in the upper class school to children from the elementary schools of the town. I do trust that the House will approve this scheme. Remember that in 1870 the school of the Charity had fallen into desuetude, the land belonging to the Charity produced nothing, but it has since been looked after, and turned to good account, and the Charity now has an income of £1,500 a year. What is proposed by the scheme is for the best interest of the poor of Cardiff. The school fees of all the poorest children in the town are remitted now. But how much longer are fees going to be paid at all? Fees have been abolished in Scotland, and is it to be supposed that England and Wales are going to be without free education much longer? Looking at the matter from a common sense point of view and apart from any attempt to make cheap popularity out of it, I am quite sure that the House will not reject this scheme.
  MR. ARTHUR J. WILLIAMSrose in his place and claimed to move "That the question be now put."
  Question, "That the Question be now put," put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly.
  The House divided: Ayes, 43; Noes, 171 (Div. List No. 74).
  The House adjourned at 2 o'clock.

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—Army (Annual); National Debt Redemption; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order.
REPRESENTATIVE PEER FOR IRELAND.
Writs and Returns electing the Lord Rathdonnell a Representative Peer for Ireland in the room of the late Lord Dunsany, deceased, with the Certificate of the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland annexed thereto: Delivered (on oath), and Certificate read.
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1883) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 42.)
Brought from the Commons; Read 1a, and to be printed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
STANDING COMMITTEES.

  REPORT FROM COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
  That the Committee have (in pursuance of Standing Order No. L.) nominated the following Lords
  to serve as Chairman of Standing Committees:—

  E. Cadogan (L. Privy Seal.)

  E. Kimberley.

  E. Selborne.

  E. Derby.

  L. Balfour.

  E. Carnarvon.

  L. Esher.

  E. Milltown.

  L. Herschell.

  E. Camperdown.

  That the Committee have (in pursuance of Standing Order No. XLVII.) nominated the following Lords to serve on "the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.":—

  L. Halsbury (L. Chancellor.)

  L. Sudeley.

  L. Elgin (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  V. Cranbrook (L. President.)

  L. Aberdare.

  M. Salisbury

  L. Coleridge.

  M. Bath.

  L. Norton.

  M. Ripon.

  L. Watson.

  E. Stanhope.

  L. Brabourne.

  E. Milltown.

  L. Bramwell.

  E. Belmore.

  L. FitzGerald.

  E. Beauchamp.

  L. Monk Bretton.

  E. Strafford.

  L. Northington (L. Henley.)

  E. Selborne.

  V. Oxenbridge,

  L. Monkswell.

  V. Cross.

  L. Hobhouse.

  L. Clinton.

  L. Lingen.

  L. Sundridge (D. Argyll.)

  L. Ashbourne

  L. Esher.

  L. Colchester.

  L. Herscherll.

  L. Wigan (E.Crawford.)

  L. Grimthorpe.

  L. Rosebery (E. Rosebery.)

  L. Thring.

  L. Macnaghten.

  L. Chaworth(E.Meath.)

  L. Basing.

  That the Committee have (in pursuance of Standing Order No. XLVII.) nominated the following
  Lords to serve on "the Standing Committee for General Bills ":—

  E, Cadogan (L. Privy Seal.

  E. Spencer.

  E. Bathurst.

  D. Richmond.

  E. Carnarvon.

  St. Albans.

  E. Harrowby

  D. Bedford.

  E. Brownlow.

  D. Rutland.

  E. Camperdown.

  D. Westminster.

  E. Granville.

  M. Abercorn. (D. Abercorn.)

  E. Kimberley.

  E. Ravensworth.

  E. Mount-Edgcumbe. (L. Steward.)

  E. Wharncliffe.

  E. Northbrook.

  E. Lathom. (L. Chamberlain.)

  E. Fife.

  V. Sidmouth.

  E. Derby.

  V. Gordon. (E. Aberdeen.)

  E. Pembroke and Montgomery.

  L. Knutsford. (One of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State.)

  E. Suffolk and Berkshire.

  E. Doncaster. (D. Buccleuch.)

  L. Ashford.

  E. Jersey.

  L. Balfour.

  E. Cowper.

  L. Boyle

  (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  L. Fermanagh (E. Erne.)

  L. Hopetoun (E. Hopetoun.).

  L. Watson.

  L. Foxford (E. Limerick.)

  L. Hothfield.

  L. de Vesci (V. de Vesci.)

  L. Harris.

  L. Ker (M. Lothian.)

  L. Rothschild.

  L. Wemyss (E. Wemyss.)

  L. Revelstoke.

  L. Wantage.

  L. Poltimore.

  L. Elphinstone.

  L. Wenlock.

  L. Colville of Culross.

  L. Egerton.

  L. Herschell.

  L. Kenry (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  L. Hillingdon.

  L. Grimthorpe.

  L, Stalbridge.

  L. Hartismere (L. Henniker.)

  L. Kensington.

  L. Brassey.

  L. Sandhurst.

  L. Thring.

  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 92 and 93 be suspended; and that the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard against Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House at Easter, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the Recess.
SMOKE NUISANCE ABATEMENT (METROPOLIS) BILL.—(No 13.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  *LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, the circumstances under which the Second Reading of the Bill is urged upon the House, impose a statement which might have otherwise been easily avoided. Glad should I have been to move it formally and silently. It is hardly possible to do so, as I have to ask your Lordships—to some extent, at least—to rescind a Vote you previously arrived at. After the Bill had been repeatedly affirmed in principle, after it had been endorsed by a Select Committee, who went into it most accurately, after the Government had given notice of some further Amendments, and thus declared that it ought to go on, it was defeated in 1887 by the union of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack with a noble Earl who often sits on the cross-benches (Earl of Wemyss), but who is not here this evening. Were it not for this to me disastrous combination, the Bill might now have been upon the Statute Book, and fogs such as we
  188
  observed to-day and yesterday at least considerably mitigated. I am ready to admit that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack may have been misled by the noble Earl on the cross-benches. That noble Earl was under a very strong but most inaccurate impression, that the Bill gave local bodies a power to visit the interior of houses. But such a power is conspicuously absent. The local body may prohibit smoke, but cannot dictate any special manner of preventing it, or ascertain the cause from which it has arisen. The noble and learned Lord —to do him justice — did indeed advance a reason of his own for opposition to the measure. It was, that the vestry had too much discretionary power, because no maximum had been laid down as to the fine they may exact in certain cases. If the noble and learned Lord had moved the introduction of a maximum, the supporters of the Bill would have been ready to accede to it. But now a maximum is given. It is the same maximum as that provided by the Acts of Lord Palmerston against smoke in factories. It was objected to the Bill from other quarters that it enabled the vestry to exempt houses beneath a certain value, and so would operate unequally amongst the different classes of society. The exemption is removed, although its removal may tend to make vestries less inclined to use the privileges which the Bill confers upon them. The power of regulating new constructions, so that smoke may be prevented in them, which was accorded to the Metropolitan Board of Works, is transferred to the London County Council. It would have been possible to make the London County Council the sole executive authority. But the avowed principle of the Bill has always been that householders are only to be controlled by local bodies they can influence. If any one dislikes the Bill, or dreads its operation, he has only to go down to the vestry, and persuade them not to make a byelaw or exercise the power delegated to them. It may be observed without the slightest disrespect, that it is impossible to estimate beforehand the disposition or the prudence of the new councils. But setting that aside, as regards inspection, the vestries have machinery the London County Council has not yet arrived at. From what has reached me

  189
  I am led to think that if your Lordships hesitate about the Bill it is from doubt as to the facility of checking smoke in private houses. In a former Session I enumerated a dozen modes of doing so. But as the number may have gone too far and tended to confusion, I will now only mention two or three which satisfy the difficulty. The object of a householder would be to reduce disturbance to a minimum. Without the slightest alteration in his fireplaces, he may burn coke and wood together. The heat is good, the flame sufficient, and hardly any smoke emerges. If that plan is objected to, he may slightly alter his existing fireplaces, still burning coal, in a manner Mr. Ernest Hart explained to the Select Committee. If he is willing to go further he may adopt the fireplace of Sir William Siemens, in which coke and gas are seen to operate together. The result is excellent when once attained, but it involves the necessary work for bringing gas up to the fender. The Bill has been subjected to the Vestries and the London County Council. No adverse resolution has been carried. It is true that some expense may be involved to those who do not act on the first of my suggestions for burning coke and wood together. A noble Lord who sat on the Select Committee formed an estimate of what he apprehended as the new and serious taxation to be imposed on the Metropolis, in order to restrain the smoke of private houses. But Mr. Rollo Russell, in an admirable lecture about a year ago, pointed out how much expense may be avoided which the smoky atmosphere occasions. Mr. Rollo Russell is a son of the late Lord Russell. He began life at the Foreign Office, where accuracy is traditional. His lecture was delivered to the Society of Arts before Sir Douglas Galton, and thus exposed to every variety of criticism. He is by far the most accomplished expert on the subject now before us. Some of the calculations he has given in an interesting table may be more useful than any argument which I could add to those in the possession of your Lordships. Extra washing for a city with suburbs containing 4,000,000 inhabitants, £2,000,000. Restoring gilding, metal work, shop-fronts, signs, names of streets, advertisements at stations, monuments, &c., (e.g., Albert Memorial) £100,000.
  190
  Destruction of mortar, cement, &c., repointing and pointing bricks (see Angus Smith), £20,000. Chimney sweeping: 1,000,000 chimneys at 18. each, £50,000. Escape as smoke or soot of 1–100th of fuel burnt into atmosphere and chimneys, £100,000. Waste of one-fourth of the coal used by uneconomical and smoke-producing kitchen ranges and fireplaces, £1,000,000. Increased mortality: impairment of health, illness and consequent expense caused by smoke fogs and smoky air; lowered vitality hindering quick recovery from illness, and in general reducing capacity for work; children kept from school, &c., £320,000. Damage to trees, plants, shrubs, flowers, vegetables, fruits in and around London, in woods, parks, gardens, squares, conservatories, windows, nursery-gardens, orchards, &c., £50,000. Total, £5,200,500 per annum. It may be said that figures are uncertain, and that your Lordships ought not to be too readily directed by them. In that case, I give up the £200,500. I will oven reduce the £5,000,000 to £2,500,000 It would still exceed the highest calculation of the outlay which this Bill, if law, could fasten on the aggregate of householders. Mr. Rollo Russell is not the only witness or authority we can refer to. There is an interesting passage from the correspondence of Mr. Motley, which is, perhaps, the publication of the moment. Mr. Motley was well known to many of your Lordships as the Minister of the United States and the historian of the Netherlands. In November 1859, when the evil had not reached its present magnitude, Mr. Motley wrote from the Oatlands Park Hotel at -Walton, 20 miles from London—
  "I do not object to fog, always except a black fog, a London fog. I was obliged to pass the day in town yesterday, and to breathe unmitigated coal smoke for six hours. When the fog settles down in London, the smoke from millions of chimneys settles down with it. It cannot escape upwards, and so every breathing being is turned for the time into a chimney. I was a chimney all day yesterday, and rejoiced that I was not born in that station of life, not finding it exhilarating."
  What Mr. Motley said in 1859 exactly harmonizes with our own experience as to the fogs of the Metropolis mixed up with smoke, and those which only spring from vapour in the country. On the 31st of December last there was a good

  191
  deal of mist in the vicinity of Frome and Bath, or further in the West of England. In London only it led to darkness, danger, a variety of accidents, including a collision on the railway between Victoria and Ludgate Hill. None who arrived that day in the Metropolis—it happened to myself— would doubt as to the necessity of passing a Bill like that before your Lordships. There is a quaint and vehement expression of the late Mr. Carlyle which has also recently appeared, although not based indeed on his experience of London—
  "Are we doomed to the everlasting curse of choking atmosphere and sulphurous vapours which it is taught are the portion of devils, not still living men? I vow and swear that free air is the birthright of every free man."
  My Lords, the Bill indeed may be defeated by the union which was fatal to it in 1887, and which I am not able to outnumber. In that event its framers will rely for ultimate success on the mechanical inventor, who knows with what facility the smoke of London may be obviated; the painter, to whom daylight is indispensable as talent; the architect whose greatest works are marred or thrown into obscurity; the sculptor, who foresees the blackness of the marble which he handles. They will rely also on the whole of that sex who, as married women and young ladies, are compelled to pass weeks and months in an atmosphere by which their beauty is deteriorated. But in reading the Bill a second time to-night, the House will merely go back to its original position and affirm that to improve the air of the Metropolis something beyond the Acts of Lord Palmerston is called for. That name reminds me I shall have to move without the frequently-afforded aid of Lord Mount Temple, who has now closed his irreproachable career of virtue and activity. I am obliged, also, to lament the absence of the Duke of Westminster, who is retained, by some indisposition, in the country. However, I am authorized to mention that a letter has reached me from the noble Duke to the effect that his opinion on the subject—explained to the House before—is perfectly unaltered; that he regards the Bill as necessary to the health and comfort of the town with which ho is now officially connected, beyond the well-known ties which previously attached him to it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord has referred to me once or twice in the course of his observations; I can only say that my objections to a great part of this Bill remain unaltered, but I understand from those who represent the Department of the Government which particularly deals with a subject of this kind that they would rather have the various matters considered in Committee than decided summarily by rejecting the Bill. I will not persist in the intention I originally conceived of moving that this Bill be read this day six months, but at a later stage of the Bill, unless the objections which I shall urge are removed by Amendments in Committee, I shall certainly move the rejection of the measure.
  EARL BROWNLOW: I feel that the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of the Bill has a very strong argument in the condition of the Metropolis yesterday and this morning. On reading over the Bill I find that several clauses which, on a former occasion, I pointed out to the House as objectionable have been removed, and there fore I think the Bill is better than that which was brought forward by the noble Lord on a former occasion. The particular provision, however, which caused the Bill on the last occasion to be thrown out still remains—namely, the clause providing that private houses should be included in the operation of the Bill. I can only say that when the Bill goes into Committee it will be impossible for Her Majesty's Government to support that proviso in any way. At the same time there are in the Bill other points which, I think, might become law. I cannot help regretting that the noble Lord proposes to make the Vestry the local authority for the purpose of making bye-laws. It appears to me that it would be far better to have the bye-laws made by some higher authority, say the County Council, the Vestries only having power to adopt thorn if they choose.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: I am sure the public outside will be delighted with the attitude which the Government have taken up on this Bill. I think the public would have been disappointed if the Bill had been rejected altogether on the Second Reading. As a Member of the London County Council, I may be allowed to say that I am very glad that,

  193
  under Clause 5, power is given to the County Councils to alter or to make bye-laws. I am also glad to hear from the noble Lord who has just sat down that the Government will agree to that, because there is no doubt in my mind whatever that, until the Government do make up their minds in one way or another to deal with private houses, we shall never get rid of the great smoke nuisance in the Metropolis. After all, it is the millions of chimneys belonging to private houses that create the nuisance, not the factory chimneys.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I should like to say one word upon a point to which the noble Lord opposite called attention. 'Whatever legislation be determined upon in the shape of bye-laws to be made, I think that those bye-laws ought to be made by one body for the entire Metropolis. Nothing could be more objectionable than that there should be different regulations on this subject for different parts of the Metropolis; because, in one parish where the evil, so far as it was strictly local, had been remedied at great sacrifice and expense, the population might still be under the burden of the smoke from a neighbouring parish. It seems to me that, in any legislation on this matter, that should be one cardinal point.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read second time.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: I beg to move that the Bill be referred to a Committee of the whole House.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I should think this was distinctly the class of Bill that should be referred to one of the Standing Committees.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I think the general feeling of the House will be with the noble Lord (Lord Herschell) that this Bill should go to one of the Standing Committees, where the examination into its provisions will, no doubt, be severe and salutary.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: I will defer to what seems to be the general opinion of your Lordships, and move that the Bill be referred to a Standing Committee.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Bill referred to Standing Committee for General Bills.

REFORMATORY SCHOOLS BILL.— (No. 36.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL BROWNLOW: I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, which is founded upon the Report of a Royal Commission which was appointed to inquire into the condition of certified Reformatory Schools, and to report what amendments of the law were expedient. This Commission was a very strong Commission, presided over by Lord Aberdare, who was assisted by a very strong list of noble Lords. They took a great deal of valuable evidence, and sent in a very full and luminous Report, which it is hardly necessary to say has been exceedingly valuable in the framing of the Bill now before the House. At the present time there are in England and Scotland 56 reformatory schools. Of these 55 are established entirely by voluntary agencies, and one—and that one in Scotland—was established by the Glasgow Juvenile Delinquency Board. These schools, representing a national and philanthropic work, though established by voluntary agencies, are entirely under the sanction and control of the State. This condition of things the present Bill does not propose in any way to alter. The object of reformatory schools is to place young criminals of both sexes under such careful educational restraint as may tend to wean them from the vicious courses into which they have fallen upon the very threshold of life, very often not by their own fault, but through the neglect and carelessness of their parents and guardians. The Bill does not involve any great change of principle from the existing system. In the Bill introduced and read a first time last year, there was a provision in Clause 3 that the inspection of reformatory schools should remain as before under the Reformatory School Inspectors, but that there should be a further concurrent power of inspection given to Her Majesty's Inspectors under the Education Department. This proposal of dual inspection excited such opposition on the part of school managers and others, that it has

  195
  been considered unadvisable to insist upon it. There therefore remained two alternatives, one to leave matters as they are, the other, to hand over these Reformatory Schools entirely to the Inspectors of the Education Department. Now, it certainly seems undesirable to remove young delinquents altogether from the control of the Home Office, and the Inspectors of the Education Department have no experience of reformatories or boarding schools. It is therefore proposed that these schools shall remain under their present Inspectors. If, however, it be thought that a higher standard should be reached, the Government will be glad to consider any suggestions in Committee. Clause 9 deals with the question of imprisonment. Opinions are divided as to whether children should always be imprisoned before being sent to a reformatory. On the one hand it is urged that the school should not be considered a punishment, and that the child should realize that punishment was over. On the other hand, it is urged that imprisonment necessarily has an injurious effect on the child. The Bill meets the difficulty by vesting a discretion in the magistrate; and Clauses 10 and 11 provide for the infliction of punishments other than imprisonment. It is provided that, in lieu of sending a youthful offender to a reformatory school, the Court may—
  "(a) adjudge that the youthful offender, if a male, be whipped; (b) adjourn the case on the parent undertaking to punish the youthful offender to the satisfaction of the Court; (c) fine the parent any sum not exceeding one pound; (d) order the parent to pay to any per.. son injured by the offence compensation not exceeding five pounds; (e) order the parent to give security for the good behaviour of the youthful offender."
  No commitment to a reformatory school is to be made of children under 14 years of age, unless a previous conviction is proved. Then, power is given to the Secretary of State to order the discharge of any youthful offender from a school, but it is also provided that—
  "Where a youthful offender is discharged from a certified reformatory school, either on the expiration of the period of detention originally allotted to him, or in pursuance of an order of discharge by the Secretary of State, he shall, during a period of two years from the date of his discharge, remain subject to the conditions specified in the First Schedule to this Act, and if,
  196
  during that period, he fails to conform with any one or more of the conditions on which he was discharged, he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act, and shall, on summary conviction, be liable, in addition to any other punishment, to be ordered by the Court to be sent back to the same or another certified reformatory school, and to be there detained for any period which the Court may thin k fit, not exceeding two years from the expiration of the original period of detention."
  This provision will obviously be of especial value in the case of girls. Clause 20 provides that where a youthful offender has conducted himself well he may be, with his own consent, apprenticed to any trade, calling, or service (which would include enlistment in the Army) or be disposed of by emigration, notwithstanding that his period of detention has not expired. Clause 24 provides for a contribution by the Treasury to the various expenses, including the expense of emigration. County and Borough Councils are also to contribute. The only other provision which it is necessary to mention to your Lordships is that in Clause 27, which will enact that—
  "The parent of a youthful offender detained n a certified reformatory school shall be primarily liable to pay for his support and maintenance therein."
  At the present time the parent is only made liable for a sum not exceeding 5s,. a week; but, if it be clearly proved that the parent can afford it, there can be no reason why the parent should not be made liable for the whole cost of maintenance of the child. I have endeavoured, my Lords, as briefly as possible, to lay before you the principal changes proposed by the Bill. It is not a very complicated measure. It is much shorter and simpler than the Bill which will shortly be before your Lordships dealing with industrial schools. I now ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  LORD ABERDARE: The noble Lord is quite right in saying that this Bill is, in the main, a Consolidation Bill. I rather regret that the recommendation of the Commission in favour of inspection by the Education Department has not been adopted. The noble Viscount opposite, who has filled the office of Home Secretary, must know how difficult it is to get a good selection of schoolmasters for reformatory schools. The Commission considered that the

  197
  only way of overcoming that difficulty was by giving the appointment of masters to the Education Department, and giving the inspection of the teaching, so far as it was not technical, to the Education Department also. They were of opinion that the friction arising from the dual inspection would not be so great as was apprehended by some. When the Royal Commission was appointed, there was a general impression that a great many children were sent to reformatories who ought to be sent to industrial schools, and to industrial schools who ought to be sent to reformatories. A great effort has been made to reduce the number sent to reformatory schools. With respect to boys under 12, who, in the opinion of the magistrates, have been leading criminal lives, and the record of whose conduct is well known, I do not think that such boys are proper subjects for industrial schools. But I remember well that Mr. Baker, one of the greatest authorities on this subject, stated before the Royal Commission that offenders of that class have not only diminished in number, but were also exhibiting less atrocity of character. They were altogether more manageable. The number of reformatories has been lessened by two since last year, while industrial schools have greatly increased. That is encouraging. The boys who should be sent to reformatories are boys of hardened character. The enforcement of payment by the parents in England, and especially in Scotland and Ireland, has had a very beneficial influence. In Scotland the Returns show that there are a number of defaulters. In a prosperous country like Scotland there is no reason why parents should not be obliged to pay. I am anxious to interest the County Council as a contributory in the matter. As the noble Lord has said, there are a number of matters which will require careful discussion in Committee, and, no doubt, when that stage is reached it will be found possible to improve the Bill in many respects.
  *LORD NORTON: The measure now before us deals only with reformatory schools, but the other half of the subject relating to industrial schools, promised after Easter, was before the House last Session, and we know, therefore, that both Bills are almost in the same words. There is no difference be-
  198
  tween the schools provided by each: the only difference is between the classes of children sent to some or other of them. The second clause of the Bill before the House enables a Secretary of State to increase and multiply the classification of the subjects of these schools, and a conference of managers has suggested no less than four kinds of reformatories — for incorrigibles; for offenders who have been in prisons; for those who have not; and for very immoral girls. Two more classes of reformatories have been suggested—for troublesome cases from other schools; and for truants. Finer psychological distinctions have also been suggested, such is the tendency to multiply institutions by those who are deeply and scientifically interested. But, after all, the treatment of children in similar schools must be much the same, and though convicted children should be separated, no one can see any difference practically in the treatment of them at a reformatory or of others at an industrial school. It is a mere fancy, even if it were desirable, that any school should be made specially correctional during a child's whole education. A penal school is a horrible idea. Medicine cannot be mixed with dietary during all childhood. In the Government's view that children in both reformatory and industrial schools should be educated in a distinct Police and Home Office Department of Education, these two Bills, should be one, only indicating the description of children to be kept separately in each denomination of the schools alike provided for both. I have a Bill standing also for Second Reading which deals with both, but my Bill proposes to put all schools under the School Department. The children convicted of a crime are, after suitable and adequate punishment, proposed to be sent separately to reformatory schools; children found begging, homeless, or thrown in company with thieves are proposed to be sent to industrial schools. The Government division of the subject into two Bills will give this advantage—that the industrial school half cannot, at all events, be any longer divorced from our National School Department under any decent pretence whatever. To educate homeless and neglected children penally must cease to be a scandal to this country.

  199
  Two reasons were given by the Commissioners for still continuing some of these schools under the Home Office, and they seem both extremely bad reasons. They thought the Home Office must take charge of industrial schools apart, because it was connected with the judicial and police system of the country and with the administration of prisons, as if schooling of unconvicted outcasts could have anything to do with judgment and police or schools with prisons. The other reason was that the Education Department was not fit to superintend industrial training; and that diet and domestic care of children belonged more to the Home Office. But this is just what the Education Department is now proposing to undertake for national schools in general, and, if unfit, the Department should be made fit, and not schools taken away from it to another office as more fit. Pauper children who are of the same class are boarded and educated without the stigma of police control. The Commissioners were driven to half abandon their strange reasoning, and to commend industrial schools to the joint care of both the Home and Education Departments. In this dual government they seem to have failed of official acquiescence. But they fully admitted that no reason whatever existed for day industrial schools being taken out of the School Department, or being distinguishable from schools already in it. It is the dislike of that Department as too literary, and the desire to have an independent management—though that would still be possible under separate inspection—that make the Managers cling to the Home Office as an escape from interference. It is a great improvement in the present Bill that County Councils will have power to establish and maintain all these kinds of schools, and to enforce parental liability, and for the ultimate disposition of children whom they will have educated in loco parentis. The 10th clause, for alternative treatment of reformatory subjects by whipping, fining parents, and taking security from them for better conduct of their children is admirable, and properly distinguishes the penal from the educatory treatment—for the latter sending children home whenever there is a decent home for them to go to, so that
  200
  parents may not absolutely make a profit by the misconduct of their children. I think, my Lords, there are many good points in this Bill, but certainly it seems to me that before adequate justice can be done to its discussion we must have before us the other half of the Government scheme, and I shall, therefore, beg to postpone my own Bill.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: I think this Bill will effect a great improvement in the legislation dealing with children of the criminal classes. There are two clauses which I am most heartily in favour of, the one which gives power to deal with girls who are leading bad lives, or are in danger of getting into evil, and the second is that providing for emigration. I am also delighted to find that the sending to reformatory schools is not compulsory, but that there are alternative punishments provided, one of which is whipping. I must express regret, however, that girls were exempted from whipping. I do not see why a girl of 10 or 12 years of age should be exempted. It is most unjust to boys. I am supported in that view by many ladies who have interested themselves in the education of girls. Miss Yonge, the authoress, has written very strongly both to me and to the public Press in this sense, as have also Mrs. Meredith, of the Princess Mary's Homes; Miss Bolton, and other ladies actively engaged in the benevolent work of rescuing children from vice. Charles Kingsley having been for most of his life opposed even to the whipping of boys, declared that his wife's experience had shown him the advantage and necessity of it in the case of children of both sexes. To my mind gross injustice is occasionally perpetrated owing to the present condition of the law upon this subject. I will give your Lordships an instance of my meaning. A short time ago, at Doncaster, a girl who gave her age as 8 was convicted of a theft of money. After she had stolen the money she invited her brother and a boy friend to accompany her to Lincoln. The boys actually did not know the money was stolen until they were in the train. They were all three captured. The brother was whipped with a birch rod; but the girl, the real culprit, was dismissed. Three days after wards she was caught thieving again. The magis-

  201
  trates endeavoured to send her to a reformatory, but none would admit her, and she was again dismissed scot free. Is this justice? My lords, I call this injustice, and the very apotheosis of sentimental legislation. Such legislation is unjust, contrary to common sense and insincere. I say insincere, for if any of our own girls had at that age been guilty of such a crime we should not have hesitated to have inflicted upon her the proper punishment for a child of that age. Dr. Arnold has said very plainly indeed that in his opinion corporal punishment is of very great service with children of both sexes. Ten newspapers, several of them circulating among ladies, have also lately supported his view. Although I believe whipping to be, under certain circumstances, beneficial to boys, I am almost tempted to vote against that clause because it is unjust to them to limit the punishment to the male sex. Fear is expressed that the infliction of whipping on girls would arouse a sentimental outcry in the country. I believe there is no ground for that fear. The English people are, after all, amenable to common sense; and, in m y view, it is only common sense that a child under 10 years of age, whatever its sex, ought to be whipped.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY: I think the success of reformatory education would be most seriously imperilled if it were transferred to the Education Department. The Education Department is obliged to look principally, almost entirely, to the intellectual side of education. Reformatory teaching requires peculiar qualities, not likely to be found in the ordinary teacher. The work is very difficult and perhaps thankless, and if there is not a sufficient supply of teachers it is probably because they are insufficiently paid. I hope Her Majesty's Government will press the Bill through this Session, as we have already waited for it long enough.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: It is, no doubt, correct to say that the children who are sent to these schools are not criminals, but they differ very much indeed from the children who attend ordinary schools. They have not had honest methods of bringing up, but exactly the reverse. Therefore,
  202
  the education in these schools must materially differ from that in ordinary schools. The aim must be to wean the child from bad and criminal habits. I hope the Government will adhere to the methods of inspection which are proposed by the Bill. It would be a great misfortune if these schools were left to the inspection of the officers of the Education Department, who might be disposed to take too mechanical a view of their duties.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: There seems to be really no opposition to the Second Reading of this Bill, and the principal point referred to in the course of the discussion has been that of where control should be. I differ from the noble Lord's (Lord Norton) views and take a very strong view against removing these schools from the control of the Home Office. It is not necessary at this stage to discuss that question, but I thought it right to say this much, as my noble Friend behind me seemed to think that his views, so far as industrial schools went, met with the acceptance of the Government.
  *THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: I should like to ask the noble Earl who has charge of the Bill why it does not extend to Ireland? I notice that provisions are made for extending it to Scotland, and I think the same ought to be done with regard to Ireland. I am especially anxious that the discretionary power given to the Court with regard to sending children to prison before they go to a Reformatory should be possessed by the Courts in Ireland, as I have the greatest objection to young children being sent to gaol when it can be possibly avoided.
  EARL BROWNLOW: I certainly cannot consent, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, to the introduction of any clause providing for the whipping of girls.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.

  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL.—(No. 15)
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read and discharged.
  COMMISSIONERS FOR OATHS BILL (No. 6)
  Amendments reported (according to order): Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday the 30th inst.

  THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888.—QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE, in rising to call attention to the 54th, 57th, and 87th sections of the Local Government Act, 1888; and to ask Her Majesty's Government whether parties aggrieved by orders of the Local Government Board, made or confirmed under either the 54th or 57th sections, may petition Parliament, and be heard before a Select Committee, in the manner provided by the 87th section for cases to which it applies, said: My object in putting this question is not so much to get from my noble Friend (Lord Balfour of Burley) an interpretation of the clauses mentioned in the question, as to elicit from him what is the policy which Her Majesty's Government is of opinion ought to be pursued with those Orders of the Local Government Board which are laid upon the Table of this House.
  *LORD BALFOUR: I think I can reply to this question in a very few words. Your Lordships, on referring to Sections 54 and 57 of the Act, will see that they deal with important subjects, such as the alteration of the boundaries of the county and making new county boroughs. But other matters referred to, such as the number of wards and electoral districts, are of less importance, and the policy of the Act is to deal with these different matters according to the different degrees of their importance. In regard to some of them it is provided by Section 54 that, while the County Council and the Local Government Board may agree on what is desirable to be done, and may embody their decisions in a Provisional Order, the policy of which is to regard those matters as of such intrinsic importancee that they must be submitted to Parliament in the form of Bills confirming Provisional Orders. Section 87 provides that those Provisional Orders should be dealt with in the same way, in every rsspect, as other Provisional Orders are dealt with when they are brought before Parliament—namely, that if opposed, they should be referred to a
  204
  Select Committee, and that the parties should be heard by counsel. This applies only to the first four sub-sections, a, b, c, and d. In regard to the sub-sections e and f, they have reference to matters of much less importance, and upon them the decision of the Local Government Board is final. Section 57 relates to different classes of subjects. In regard to some of them the decision of the County Council and the Local Government Board taken together is final; and, in the first two or three classes, a Report has to be laid before Parliament by the Local Government Board if a certain number of electors oppose. But in regard to these matters, all that is done is that the Local Government Board makes a Report to both Houses of Parliament of what has been done, and leaves the opponents, should there be any, to take such steps in either House as they may think fit. What those steps would be would depend upon the circumstances in each case; but I think I am not going too far in saying that it would probably have to be by Motion disapproving the action of the Local Government Board. There is, therefore, no analogy between the procedure under the 57th section and the Tramways Act to which the noble Lord has referred.

  THE EDUCATION CODE, 1889.

    QUESTIONS. OBSERVATIONS.
    THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON, in rising to ask the Lord President of the Council whether it would be possible to insert words in Article 85 (a) of the new Code which will make it clear that the requirement of 100 cubic feet of internal space and 10 square feet of internal area, for each child in average attendance, will either not be applied to existing schools or will only be applied in extreme cases, said: I should not like it to be supposed that, in asking this question, I intend to imply that the Government has any intention of putting severe pressure on the voluntary schools; and I should like to add that I have not yet had time thoroughly to study the Code, and the more I look into it the more important do the changes proposed in it appear to me to be. They seem to me to be so serious that it might be necessary that we should have a little more time thoroughly to examine them

    205
    before giving an opinion as to the way they would work. I am glad the Government has given us two months instead of the statutory one month during which the Code might be considered in Parliament. No doubt the Government has paid regard to one of the fundamental recommendations of the late Commission of Inquiry into Education—viz., that both the Board schools and the voluntary schools should be considered as constituting an essential part of the educational provision for the country. There is no reason to believe that there is any desire on the part of the Government to hurt the voluntary schools in any way, but there is a great deal in the Code which affects them very much. I hope I may be permitted, after putting this question to-night, to reserve to myself the liberty of saying something at a later stage about the general working of the Code. I think it is impossible to exaggerate the importance of a great many of the changes. They grow under one's eye as one considers them, and the Government will probably find that it is really of value to the Department that they should know by some public discussion what would be the effect of a great many of these proposals. But the particular question which I ask now has been pressed upon me very much, because it is one of the very first things that struck the minds of the managers of voluntary schools. The 85th article of the new Code is so worded as to give generally a power to the Department to insist upon 100 cubic feet of internal space and 10 square feet of internal area being provided for every child in average attendance. There are a great many cases where that would be very oppressive. In many cases it would be almost impossible to raise the necessary funds. There are other cases, especially in London, where it would be impossible to obtain the necessary ground for enlargement. In many cases, again, the managers would, in the first instance, have been glad to comply with such a provision, but were discouraged and practically prevented by the Department itself from complying, because the Department refused to make any grant corresponding to the increased area. In these various ways there can be no doubt at all that anything like a universal requirement of this increased
    206
    accommodation in the schools would be so oppressive as practically to interfere seriously with the general principle of recognizing the voluntary schools as part of the provision for the education of the nation. I shall be glad, therefore, if the President of the Council is able to give some assurance that that is not the intention of the Government, and to say also whether it would be possible to insert words which would make it quite clear that this requisition is not to be applied to existing schools, or would only be applied in very extreme cases. I do not think it would be difficult to provide such words if there were a real desire to insert them, and I am sure it would make a very great difference in the way in which the Code is generally regarded in the country by those who have charge of these schools all over England.
    *VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: I should be the last person to deny that a full discussion of the new Code would be not only objectionable, but of immense advantage. I should also like distinctly to say that the Government recognize as fully as the right rev. Prelate the desirability of maintaining the settlement which has been made with respect to the education of this country. The voluntary schools are as much a part of our system as the Board schools, and are as much recognized in this Code as they have been on any previous occasion.. The Government desire to do equal justice as between Board and voluntary schools, and thereby to promote the efficiency of our national education. With regard to the special question. asked by my right rev. Friend, what is required by the Code is that—
    "School premises should be healthy, well-lighted, warmed, drained, and ventilated, properly furnished, and supplied with suitable offices, and contain sufficient accommodation for the scholars attending."
    That refers to existing schools, and a note follows as to construction of new buildings, and it is said that the Department will "endeavour to secure the 100 cubic and 10 square feet for each unit in average attendance." These words were introduced ten years ago to give the Department discretion, on which they have acted. No hard.. and fast rule is laid down, and the Department have only been desirous to act in accordance with the recom-

    207
    mendation of all the Royal Commissions—
    "That the 100 cubic and 10 superficial feet should be the minimum accommodation provided for each child in average attendance in all school buildings in future to be erected."
    At page 63 they remark that:—
    "Superficial area is but a rough approximation to the actual accommodation of a school, and that the truer criterion, especially in schools for elder children, is to be found in the amount of seat room provided. We think that the demand for increased accommodation for each child in those buildings in which it has been hitherto calculated at eight square feet per child should be measured rather by the need of more seat room than by the simple calculation of superficial area. The proper measure of a school's accommodation should be the seat supply."
    So long as there is adequate room for the children in average attendance, existing schools need not fear the interference of the Department on the ground or want of space. No raid upon schools heretofore sanctioned was ever contemplated, and there are many reasons why it would be unjust. They need not be apprehensive of any undue pressure.
    THE EARL OF HARROWBY: It is impossible to say even two or three words on the subject of the New Code without expressing one's great sense of the difficulty of the subject. No one knows better than I do the extreme complexity and difficulty of these educational questions. A Bill in Parliament is bad enough, but a Code is always more difficult, because it is full of details of the most complex kind. I do not purpose at this moment to go into the question of the Code. If it were always to be administered by my noble Friend I should feel perfectly confident that all was right, but it may at some time have to be administered by someone very different. The point I wish to press upon noble Lords is this—that the Code proposes greater changes than have been made in our system of education during the last twenty years. I am utterly unprepared at present to give any opinion as to how this Code will work. It fails to embody many of the important modifications of the existing system which have been recommended by the Royal Commission, so that the Code cannot be described as the Code of the Commission. The Commission expressly state that their recommenda-
    208
    tions can only be taken as part of an entire scheme. I acknowledge the skill, labour, and goodwill to the cause of education with which the Code is framed; but at present one cannot express an opinion as to its educational effect. I can not, however, help thinking that if the excellent example of Mr. Mundella, which inspired the confidence even of his opponents, had been followed, it would have been a wise, generous, and considerate course. In 1881, when changes small and insignicant compared with those of the present Code were introduced, Mr. Mundella allowed the proposed Code to lie on the Table for a whole Session in order that a basis of general agreement might be found. I remember that there was hardly anything in Mr. Mundella's career as Vice President that met with more general assent and applause than that action. It is worth considering, in so grave a matter as this, whether it would not be better to follow a precedent so wise and generous, before the Government are finally committed to the great and vital changes which are embodied in this Code.
    EARL FORTESCUE: The more I have looked into the Code since the discussion the other day, the more I have been struck with the great magnitude of the alterations—many of which, I think, very great improvements—and the more I have felt that it requires very careful discussion as a whole, because of the working of the different alterations in conjunction with each other. I trust that before the expiration of the two months which have to elapse after the Code is placed on the Table, before it acquired the force of Law, there will be time for full discussion which, in your Lordships' House, ought to take place soon after the Recess. The working of the Code in the country would be greatly facilitated by public attention out-of-doors being called to the various provisions which, at first sight, can hardly be adequately understood in their full bearing.
    House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Tuesday the 30th instant, a quarter past Four o'clock.