Sitting of 4 August 1890

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;—
The House went;—and being re turned;—
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to the Bills mentioned on page 1709.

QUESTIONS.

  THE CALEDONIAN CANAL.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH (Invernessshire): I beg to ask the Lord
  1728
  Advocate if he will state by what authority and at whose instigation a locked gate has been recently placed on Government property across the much-frequented east bank of the Caledonian Canal at Fort Augustus, near to Loch Ness, although the canal banks have been accessible to, and used by, the public ever since its opening 70 years ago; and whether he will order its immediate removal?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): The gate in question is situated on private, not on Government property, and presumably has been placed there by the proprietor. The Canal Commissioners have a right of free access to the banks and are at present negotiating with the proprietor to secure that this right is fully given effect to, but I have no power to order a removal of the gate.

  MADAGASCAR.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that great anxiety is caused to those interested in missions in Madagascar by the report that this country may give France a free hand in Madagascar in return for assenting to our Protectorate in Zanzibar; whether he is aware that a large part of Madagascar has been civilised and Christianised by British Protestant missionaries; whether great anxiety was caused to those missionaries by the pretensions of France some years ago, and whether a peaceful settlement was then come to, under which Madagascar is making rapid progress; and whether Her Majesty's Government will refrain from doing anything which may give France a pretext to encroach on the liberty of the Malagasy people or disturb the full rights now enjoyed by the British missionaries and their adherents?
  MR. JOHNSTON: May I ask whether, considering the very harsh treatment of the Rev. Mr. Shaw, the Government will take care that the missionaries are properly protected?
  THE UNDER, SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir. J. FER-GUSSON,): I think my answer will cover both questions. Her Majesty's Government are well aware of the work and claims of British mis-

  1729
  sionaries in Madagascar, and will not fail to consider them in all circumstances.
  MR. SCHWANN: Will the Government, in any negotiations, regard the claims of the Malagasies?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: That question does not arise out of my answer.

  BLACKBURN SCHOOL BOARD.
  MR. CODDINGTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he refuses to sanction the rules and regulations submitted by the Blackburn School Board, for the management of the Mayson Street Day Industrial School, provided by that Board, and which has now been ready for occupation for nearly three months, and the teachers and other officers for which have been appointed for the same time, and more especially as such rules and regulations are based on those prepared for the Day Industrial Schools of Nottingham, Gateshead, Wolverhampton, Newcastle, Leeds, Liverpool, Sunderland, Great Yarmouth, and Oxford, which have been sanctioned by previous Home Secretaries?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): The Order in Council of March, 1887, which regulates Day Industrial Schools, expressly provides that religious instruction at those schools shall be given to the children by ministers of the religious persuasion, to which they belong with no restriction on the denominational character of that instruction. The rules proposed by the Blackburn School Board do not at all give effect to this provision, nor do they correspond with the rules of the other schools mentioned. They prohibit the teaching of any distinctive religious catechism, or formulary, and for Roman Catholic children provide for religious instruction only by an assistant mistress, and if they are numerous enough to form a class. I have, therefore, declined to sanction these rules, and have advised the adoption of the same rule as that which obtains at the Salford and Manchester Schools. The Inspector of Industrial Schools has strongly urged the adoption in future of such rules as will accord with the intention of the Order in Council, and will, at the same time, remove the causes of
  1730
  that discontent which has arisen, and will necessarily arise in schools where, owing to the imperfect provision being made in the rules, particular denominations have reason to believe that insufficient opportunity is allowed for the religious instruction of the children, belonging to them.

  EAST AFRICA—THE INDIAN ABKARI (EXCISE) SYSTEM.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that it is reported that the British East African Company purposes introducing the Indian Abkari (Excise) system in Eastern Africa; and whether, in view of the condemnation of that system in India by this House last Session, the Government will interfere to prevent such a course being adopted?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: We are not aware of the report referred to by the hon. Member, but the policy of Her Majesty's Government, in conjunction with that of other Powers, is to check and restrain the importation of ardent spirits among the natives of Africa.

  THE BURMESE DACOIT BOH YAN MYUN.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he can now give the House any information as to the capture and trial of the Burmese Dacoit Boh Yan Myun?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): With the permission of the House, I will read a telegram which has been received by my noble Friend from the Viceroy, dated August 1st.
  "Yours, 29th. Regarding Yan Myun Dacoit. Following received from Chief Commissioner of Burma: 'When proclamation recently issued in Myingyan district, offering free pardon to lesser dacoits, Yan Mynu specially excepted by name, and reward 5,000 rupees offered for his apprehension. On the 28th of May last Macdonald, sub-divisional officer, heard Yan Myun meditated surrender, and sent out a pongyi to communicate with him. Macdonald says no promise was made, but we';—
  I presume he means"he"—
  'told him if he came in Authorities would probably show him mercy and spare his life. Macdonald also told Pongyi if Yan Myun sur-

  1731
  rendered he would plead for his life. Yan Myun surrendered two days later, having received no further promise. He has been tried by Deputy Commissioner of District, and sentenced to death, and he appealed to Judicial Commissioner. Appeal not yet decided, and sentence not carried out. Yan Myun first alleged he surrendered on the understanding that Macdonald would do his utmost to get his life spared; subsequently that he received a promise that his life would be spared, but would have surrendered anyhow, owing to constant terror of being murdered. If Judicial Commissioner confirms sentence, it will not be executed until Chief Commissioner has considered case. Sir Charles Crosthwaite (who is Chief Commissioner of Burma) states that we can rely upon him to prevent ev6n apparent breach of faith.'"

  ASSAM TEA PLANTATIONS.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the difference in the mortality between coolies employed on the tea plantations of Assam, under the Act of 1882, and those not under the Act, and to the fact that the average mortality of the coolies under the Act is double that of those not under it; whether he is aware that the non-Act labourers are free agents, who take service on healthy plantations, while Act labourers are imported from a distance under long contracts, and are often placed on unhealthy plantations, and that Act labourers are often engaged by contractors for unhealthy places, in entire ignorance of the conditions of plantation life; whether he has observed that the death rate on some of those unhealthy plantations ranges from 200 to 270 per 1,000, or eight times the average mortality of Assam; that on two plantations in 1884 more than half the coolies died; that many of the coolies desert and perish in the jungle; and that many others come back from the tea gardens crippled for life, and have to depend on charity; and whether the Government of India, in the investigation they are now making into the subject, will consider the desirability of ceasing to enforce labour contracts entered into for a term of years?
  SIR J. GORST: The answer to the first question is, Yes. The attention of the Secretary of State has been frequently called to this matter by questions in Parliament, and it has been pointed out that such questions are suggested by those who desire to substitute a system of free immigration for the
  1732
  safeguards of the Act of 1882. The answer to the second question is also in the affirmative. The Government of India consider that the higher mortality among the labourers under the Act is to a great extent accounted for by the fact that these are chiefly new comers, while the non-Act labourers are generally old hands who are seasoned and acclimatised. As to the second paragraph of the question, it is one which, as I have before pointed out to the House, is based on isolated facts picked out of the official Reports of many years past. It gives a most erroneous impression of the actual state of the tea gardens. The answer to the fourth question is, Yes. This is one of the points which is engaging the attention of the Government.

  THE WORLD'S PRODUCTION OF GOLD AND SILVER.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the increasing interest in the subject and its importance, he can arrange for an annual Return of the World's production of gold and silver (based on the most approximate sources of information available to the Government), and the extent of their use in commerce, the arts, and coinage respectively, as is done by the Director of the United States Mint?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): Such an annual Return as the hon. Member suggests would, if it were trustworthy, be no doubt extremely instructive. But there are many difficulties in the way, and any Return we could give would practically be based upon the same information which is already used by the Director of the United States Mint. I will, however, make further inquiries on the subject.

  BROMPTON CEMETERY.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many coffins of deceased persons remain above ground in Brompton Cemetery, and is their number allowed to be increased every year; Is he aware that such coffins are sometimes found to have become so deteriorated by age as to allow the escape of noxious gases from their

  1733
  contents; and whether, in the interests of the public health of the Metropolis, he will consider the expediency of prohibiting any further interments in open catacombs, or of entirely closing the cemetery as a place of burial, or for any other purpose than an open space?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Inspector that there are 587 leaden coffins deposited above ground, and about 10 fresh ones are placed in the catacombs every year. It is the fact that the lead of some of these coffins occasionally gives way; but as the catacombs are daily visited, anything amiss is immediately discovered and dealt with. With regard to the cemetery generally, the Inspector is satisfied that the regulations now in force will prevent it from becoming dangerous to the public health; but with regard to coffins deposited in the catacombs, I am now in consultation with the Office of Works with a view of adopting more stringent regulations, which will remove all reasonable cause of apprehension.

  LANARKSHIRE MINERS.
  MR. DONALD CRAWFORD): I had intended to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the complaints of the Lanarkshire miners, that they have no place to prepare their cartridges, cartridges being the only form in which they are permitted by the Coal Mines Regulation Act to take gunpowder into the mines; and whether, since the preparation of the cartridges in their own houses is attended with great danger, even when compressed gunpowder is used, which is expensive, and not always made up in suitable quantities, he will consider the expediency of legislation to amend the general rules of the Act, and make it compulsory on colliery owners to provide magazines in which the miners can make their cartridges? At the request of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to postpone the question until Thursday.

  BRITISH HONDURAS.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the attention of the Colonial Office has been called to the letters by Mr. James Arthur, a merchant of Belize, appearing in the Times of
  1734
  Monday, 21st July, and the South American Journal of 26th July, complaining of the manner in which the colony of British Honduras has been administered by Sir Roper Tuckfield Goldsworthy since his appointment to the Governorship in 1884, and more particularly with reference to a series of arbitrations in which the colony, without being adequately represented, has been mulcted in considerable sums for alleged breach of contract entered into between the Government of the colony and a Mr. C. T. Hunter, a friend of the Governor; whether a serious constitutional crisis has arisen in consequence of the resignation of all the unofficial members of the Legislative Council, such resignation having been caused by the proceedings of the Governor; whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies will cause inquiries to be instituted into the correctness of these statements, either by sending out to the colony a Commissioner at the cost of the taxpayers or otherwise; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the whole of the correspondence which has passed between the 'Colonial Office and the Governor of the colony relating to the Hunter Contract case, both before and after the last arbitration held in London?
  THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,): The Secretary of State has seen the letters of Mr. Arthur. The arbitrations referred to were held by his instructions, and the colony was, in his opinion, adequately and ably represented at them. The unofficial members of the Council tendered the resignation of their seats in consequence of the vote for the amount awarded in the final arbitration being passed by the official majority in accordance with the direction of the Secretary of State, and in so doing they stated that their action was not intended to express any reflection upon the Governor. The Secretary of State has ample material for judging as to the correctness of Mr. Arthur's statements, and sees no need for sending out a Commissioner. He does not think that any good object would be obtained by laying the Papers on the Table of the House, but he will be glad to let the hon. Member see them, if he desires.

  SUPERANNUATION OF MINE INSPECTORS.
  SIR JOSEPH BAILEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, by a Treasury Minute, dated 14th June, 1859, the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, in pursuance of Section 4 of "The Superannuation Act, 1859,"declared that a period of seven years should be added to the service of Inspectors of Mines for the purpose of computing their superannuation allowance; whether, on the 8th April, 1873, Mr. Thomas Cadman was appointed an Inspector of Mines; whether Mr. Cadman retired in consequence of ill-health in January, 1887, after 14 years' service; whether Mr. Cadman's superannuation allowance was calculated on 17–60ths of his pay instead of 21–60ths, to which he was entitled, on the ground that for four years he had been Assistant Inspector, whereas in fact he had been from the first appointed Inspector, though employed to do assistant's work; whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in a letter addressed to the Secretary to the Treasury, dated 11th October, 1887, stated that up to that date it had been the belief of the Secretary of State and the Civil Service Commissioners that persons thus employed were entitled to the status of Inspectors, no intimation to the contrary having been received from the Treasury; and whether, under these circumstances, the Treasury will re-consider the matter, and award to Mr. Cadman, and others in a similar position, the full superannuation allowance to which Inspectors of Mines are entitled.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): The Estimates show that there are two classes of Inspectors of Mines—Inspectors and Assistant Inspectors. The number of each class is limited, and cannot be altered without the assent of the Treasury. It was, as stated in the question, to perform the duties of the latter class, that Mr. Cadman was appointed in 1873. The number of Inspectors was at that time fixed at 12, and there was no vacancy among them. Mr. Cadman continued to perform the duties and to receive the salary of an Assistant Inspector until his appointment, in 1876, to be an Inspector, when
  1736
  he became entitled to the higher salary and special rate of pension attached to that class. Assistant Inspectors act in subordination to the Inspectors, and can only become Inspectors by promotion on the occurrence of a vacancy. Their salaries are lower, and they do not fulfil the essential condition for a special rate of pension which is required by the 4th section of the Superannuation Act, inasmuch as they may be appointed at an age (23), not exceeding that at which public service ordinarily begins. Until Mr. Cadman's retirement, no inquiry was addressed to the Treasury, either from the Home Office or the Civil Service Commissioners, as to the right of Assistant Inspectors to special terms of pension; but the fact that Mr. Cadman was appointed after obtaining a certificate of qualification from the latter Department was notice to them and to him, under the terms of the section referred to, that he was not entitled to the special terms of pension granted by that section, which provides that persons appointed to offices placed under it may obtain pensions without having obtained Civil Service certificates.
  COLONEL BLUNDELL: Was Mr. Cadman gazetted into the Service as an Inspector or an Assistant Inspector, and are there any duties an Inspector can perform which an Assistant Inspector cannot?
  MR. JACKSON: I have pointed out that the number of Inspectors cannot be increased without the sanction of the Treasury. As there was no vacancy, Mr. Cadman could not be appointed. He entered the Service by open competition, and must, therefore, have had notice that he was not entitled to be pensioned on special terms.

  SWAZILAND.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that a Convention has been signed with the Transvaal Government, and whether that Convention excludes Her Majesty's Government from the paramount position in Swaziland conceded to it under the Convention of 1884; and whether Her Majesty's Government have acquiesced in the demand of the Transvaal State for extension of their site to the sea?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: A Convention has been signed by President Kruger, and will be presented this day to the Volksraad. Papers are in course of preparation, and will be presented as soon as possible, including, of course, Sir Francis de Winton's Report. In the meantime it may be convenient to state the substance of the Convention, the final terms of "which we have not yet received. (1) The independence of the Swazis as recognised by the Convention of 1884 is re-affirmed and maintained, and the control and management by the Swazi Government, of all affairs in which natives only are concerned, remains unaffected. (2) It is provided that there shall be a joint Administration over the white settlers, under a Proclamation to be issued by the Swazi Regent and Council. (3) A Court of Justice will be established to administer Roman Dutch Law, and to decide all cases, criminal and civil, between white settlers, and to inquire into the validity of disputed concessions. (4) All lawfully acquired rights to be recognised by the Joint Government Committee and by all Judicial Tribunals. (5) The Government of the South African Republic undertakes not to interfere to the North or North-West of the Republic, and to support by its influence the establishment of order and government by the British South Africa Company within the jurisdiction and under the powers granted them by Charter. (6) Her Majesty's Government recognises the right granted to the South Africa Republic by concession from the King of Swaziland, to construct a railway through Swaziland towards the sea. They also approve of the South Africa Republic making Treaties to secure a right to continue that railway to the sea at a point at or near Kosi Bay, and to obtain a concession of an area of 10 miles in radius at or near Kosi Bay. (7) Special provision is made to prevent the sovereignty, control, or management of Kosi Bay, or the area above mentioned, falling into the hands of a foreign Power. (8) Provision is also made for the entering of the South Africa Republic into the existing Customs Union Convention with the Cape, Orange Free State, and Bechuanaland, on terms to be agreed upon. (9) Failing such Agreement within six months, the arrange-
  1738
  ment as to Kosi Bay is to lapse; but the Joint Government of Swaziland is to continue for three years certain, and will not be terminated after the expiration of three years, unless six months' previous notice be given by either party. If the South Africa Republic enters the Customs Union, no limit of time is named for the termination of the Convention.
  DR. CLARK: Will the Papers be in the hands of hon. Members before the discussion comes on?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: It may hardly be possible to produce them by that time.
  MR. BRYCE): Considering the importance of the matter, it is most desirable that at least a Paper containing a summary of the terms should be printed before the discussion comes on.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): Papers similar in character will be laid on the Table.

  ARMENIA.
  MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he proposes to issue Mr. Clifford Lloyd's Report on the late outrages in Armenia, especially in Erzeroum?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Reports on the Asiatic provinces of Turkey cannot be ready for presentation this Session.

  ENGRAVER TO THE BOARD OF INLAND REVENUE.
  MR. BRUNNER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the vacancy to the post of Engraver to the Board of Inland Revenue has yet been filled up; and, if so, when, and in whose favour?
  MR. JACKSON: The late Deputy Engraver to the Board of Inland Revenue, Mr. W. De La Rue, was appointed last year to the post of honorary Engraver to the Board.

  "EMPEROR OF GERMANY."
  MR. BRUNNER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for what reason the German Emperor was styled the "Emperor of Germany" in Her Majesty's Speech at the opening of the Session; and par-

  1739
  ticularly whether he was then so described at the request of the German Foreign Office?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: There was no request from the German Foreign Office for the description mentioned. It has been already stated that hereafter the style "German Emperor" will be officially employed in this country.

  ANGLO-GERMAN AGREEMENT AND THE CAPE.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Cape Colony House of Assembly has, on the Motion of the Hon. Cecil Rhodes, unanimously passed a Resolution regretting that the Cape Government was not consulted with regard to the Anglo-German Agreement, as far as it concerned the territory south of the Zambesi; and whether he is now in a position to state what was the nature of the communications that are alleged to have taken place between the Home Government and the Govern-men at the Cape, with reference to the matters dealt with in the Anglo-German Agreement, before that Agreement was made?
  MR. CHANNING): I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the House of Assembly of the Cape Colony has unanimously passed the Motion submitted by the Hon. Cecil Rhodes, expressing regret that the Cape Colony was not consulted with regard to the Anglo-German Agreement, as far as it concerned the territority south of the Zambesi River, and, further, that a Motion by Sir Thomas Uppington, to the effect that the colony would deeply resent any interference with the direct control of the Cape Parliament over the Walfisch Bay territory, was also unanimously passed; whether Her Majesty's Government have been made acquainted with the grounds on which the two Motions have been based, by any communications or protests from the Cape Government made prior to the signing of the Anglo-German Agreement, or up to the present time; whether he will state the nature of such communications or protests, if any, to the House; and whether he will now state to the House what provisions of the Anglo-German Agreement were
  1740
  laid before the Cape Government, and what provisions were withheld from the Cape Government, in the communications which ho has stated took place between Her Majesty's Government and the Cape Colony Ministers before the signing of the Agreement.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I will ask to reply at the same time to the question in the name of the hon. Member for East Northampton (Mr. Channing). As regards the first paragraph of both questions we have no official knowledge. As to the second and third paragraphs, we have received no such communications or protests. As to the fourth paragraph the negotiations were conducted in London and Berlin; the High Commissioner's opinion was taken, as is stated in the Despatches published with the Agreements, on the questions of territory contiguous to the British Protectorate of Bechuanaland. The Cape Government was not a party to the negotiations, its territories were not affected by the Agreement, and the general provisions were not laid before it previously to the conclusion of the Agreement. It is not usual to consult a colony with respect to Treaty negotiations unless it is affected by them.
  MR. SUMMERS: Can the right hon. Gentleman now state what was the nature of the communications which were alleged by the First Lord of the Treasury about a month ago to have taken place between the Home Government and the Government of the Cape Colony?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Certain communications have passed with the High Commissioner; but, as was stated by the First Lord of the Treasury, they were not of a nature to be communicated to the House.
  DR. CLARK: In the White Paper Report there is a reference to a transfer of territory in the Walfisch Bay. What is the territory referred to?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: There is no question of the transfer of any territory in the Walfisch Bay district. The fact is that the territory there has never been defined. I stated quite distinctly that the Cape Colony had not been directly consulted.
  DR. CLARK: Are we to understand that, when determining the question of Walfisch Bay, the negotiations will be between Germany and the Cape Colony?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I must ask for notice of the question.
  MR. BUCHANAN): Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that the delimitation of the German sphere into Damaraland does not vitally affect the question?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I must also ask for notice of that question.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what was the nature of the communications which he asserts took place with the Cape Colony?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Member must be under a misapprehension. I said that communications had passed between the Home Government and the High Commissioner, the High Commissioner being Governor of the Cape; but I think the hon. Gentleman will find that I did not state—at all events I did not intend to state—that communications had passed between the Home Government and the Cape Government.
  MR. SUMMERS: My question had reference to two points—the communications which have passed between the Home Government and the High Commissioner, and the communications which have passed between the Home Government and the Cape Government. The right hon. Gentleman distinctly told me that communications had passed not only with the High Commissioner, but also with the Cape Government, and that they were of a confidential character, the effect of which it was not desirable to state because the negotiations were proceeding. Those negotiations have now concluded, and I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman can now state what the nature of those communications was?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No, Sir, I cannot.

  MURDER OF A BRITISH SENTRY AT GIBRALTAR.
  MR. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the statements in the Daily Graphic, of 29th July, have been called to his attention relating to the recent murder of a British soldier by a Spanish Carabinero, on the neutral ground betwixt Gibraltar and Spanish territory:—
  "The facts appear to have been as follows:—On the night in question some smugglers
  1742
  (Spaniards) were observed attempting to run a cargo on the neutral ground. The English sentry, having orders to prevent such action, gave the alarm, and a small patrol attempted to seize the offenders, who at once ran back into the English lines. The Spanish Carab-ineroes were quickly on the spot, and one of these, a mounted man, galloping up to the English soldiers, turned deliberately in his saddle, and, firing at one of our men, shot him dead. As the act took place on neutral ground, a short distance beyond our lines, and as the perpetrator at once made off, no action could be taken by the authorities, or by the coroner who presided at the inquiry;"
  If these statements are correct; and whether, in such a case, he is in a position to inform the House if any communications have passed between the British and Spanish Governments upon the subject?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The account, as given in the question, appears to be inaccurate in several particulars; but the matter is under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, who are in communication with the Spanish Government on the subject.

  NEWFOUNDLAND.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Her Majesty's Government have yet received any information regarding what is going on in Newfoundland; whether the measures taken by Captain Baldwin Walker, R.N., under the instructions of Her Majesty's Government, to enforce the modus vivendi by closing Mr. Baird's lobster factory and otherwise, are still being carried out; and whether, under pressure of legal process in the Newfoundland Courts, they have been suspended?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Her Majesty's Government are informed from time to time by the Governor of Newfoundland of what is going on in that colony. The Reports received from him show that most of the rumours which have been published in the newspapers are gross exaggerations, and that the difficulties which have occurred in connection with the fishery this season have not been of a serious nature. The measures taken by Sir Baldwin Walker to enforce the modus vivendi will, where necessary, continue to be carried out; as a matter of fact, only two factories have been closed out of all those in operation on the coast. The instructions under which

  1743
  that officer has acted have not been suspended.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Has the embargo regarding Mr. Baird's factory been removed, and has this been done on pressure of legal process in the Newfoundland Courts?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I will make inquiry.

  IRELAND—SHADOWING.
  MR. FLYNN (Cork,N.): I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the law as laid down in 38 and 39 Vic, c. 86, which enacts that every person commits a misdemeanour who, with a view to compel any other person to abstain from any act which he has a legal right to do, persistently follows such person from place to place, or persistently watches or besets the house, or other place, where such other person resides, or works, or carries on business; and whether he can say if the Criminal Law and Procedure Act repeals, or the constabulary regulations over-ride, these sections of the Act quoted; and, if not, under what authority or Statute constables act who are engaged in shadowing duty in Ireland, when they shadow farmers, cattle dealers, and others, engaged in business at different fairs and markets in Ireland.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): I am aware of the enactment referred to in the question, which has no application whatever to the action of the police. It refers to costs in relation to trade disputes done wrongfully and without legal authority, and for the purpose of intimidation.
  MR. SEXTON: Do the instructions to the police warn them not to obstruct persons who are engaged in the transaction of business?
  MR. MADDEN: I am not aware of the precise instructions, but if the hon. Member will put a question upon the Paper I will inquire.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that a gentleman, named William Lee, was closely shadowed in Youghal by two policemen last Tuesday evening; whether this action was taken on instructions given by authority; and whether it was done in consequence
  1744
  of Mr. Lee being a local organiser of the labour movement?
  MR. MADDEN: As the hon. Member did not specify any district when he originally placed this question on the Paper the Constabulary Authorities were unable to make the necessary inquiries. They are, however, now proceeding.

  HAULBOWLINE DOCKS.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty how many labourers and artisans are now employed at Haulbowline Docks; what buildings have been completed during the past and present financial years; what total amount has been spent on the works up to the present time; and whether there is any immediate prospect of their completion?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G HAMILTON,): About 50 men are employed daily, on the average. No new buildings were erected during the past financial year, but various works were carried out at a cost of £6,800, and it is proposed to spend on similar works about £6,200 during the present financial year. The total cost of the extension works, which were completed in 1888, exclusive of the annual minor works and repairs, was about £567,000. The extension works have been practically completed, but it may be necessary to make some small addition hereafter.
  DR. TANNER: How soon will the docks' be able to receive a ship?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I am not certain, but I think that a ship could be docked there at the present moment.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR): Money was obtained for the erection of certain machinery last year or the year before. Has the machinery been erected, and, if so, what is being done with it; if any work has been done, what is its character?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! That is a question which requires notice.

  CONSTABULARY FORCE FUND.
  MR. SEXTON): I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland what is the present condition of the Constabulary Force Fund, particularly as to the gross assets, the annual receipts, and the annual expenditure; by whom the account is kept, by whom it is audited,

  1745
  and whether any periodical statements are published or furnished to the contributors; what is the intention of the Irish Government in regard to the fund; and whether they are disposed to wind it up at the desire of the contributors.
  MR. MADDEN: The condition of the Constabulary Force Fund has been for some time engaging the careful attention of the Irish Government in communication with the Treasury. The question is now in an advanced stage, and we hope to be in a position at an early day to make a statement on the subject which will be satisfactory to all parties concerned.
  MR. SEXTON: I will repeat the question on Monday.

  PRIMARY TRAINING COLLEGES.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether, in equalising the position of the Irish Primary Training Colleges, account will be taken, in the case of the non-official colleges, of the special annual charges arising against their credit funds, owing to the disadvantage arising from inequality of treatment up to the present time?
  MR. MADDEN: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone the question until to-morrow.

  DRAINAGE OF DERRY PRISON.
  DR. FITZGERALD): I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he can state what alterations have been made in the drainage of Derry Prison since Major Beamish issued his Report with regard to the sanitary condition of the prison; and how often the dusthole of the prison is now cleared out?
  MR. MADDEN: The General Prisons Board report that since the Report referred to one of the drains in the female prison has been altered, and now discharges into the Bennet Street sewer, and a ventilating pipe has been erected at the head of the Bennet Street sewer. The dusthole referred to is, by order of the Board, cleared out once a month."

  LAND COMMISSION—DERRY AND DONEGAL.
  MR. DALTON): I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he can explain how it happened that
  1746
  at the sittings of the Chief Land Commissioners in Derry on the 18th of June, in the case of General Tredennick, landlord, James O'Donnell, tenant, the Court made an order to have the tenant's case re-heard at the next sitting of the Chief Commissioners in Donegal, though the case was adjudicated upon three years ago by the Sub-Commissioners and the landlord did not give notice of appeal within the time required by law?
  MR. MADDEN: The Land Commissioners report that the facts are as stated in the question. They have adopted the course referred to in order to enable a mistake in the area and denomination of the holding, set forth in the Order made by the Sub-Commission, to be rectified. This mistake was ascertained for the first time at the sitting of the Land Commission in Derry in last June, in the hearing of a case between the tenant's father and the same landlord by the admission of the tenant who was a witness in the case.

  MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT—IRISH LARD.
  MR. M'CARTAN): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to "The Merchandise Marks Act, 1887,"whether his attention has been called to the reports of the proceedings at a meeting of the Provisions Curers' Association of Ulster, held at Belfast on the 25th July, when it was resolved that—
  "Special legislation is needed to protect the Irish lard trade, 'which has been practically undermined by the system of shipping 'American lard refined in Belfast,' branded as 'Pure bladdered lard, Belfast,'"
  and also that, for the efficient working of the above Act as a protection to the public—
  "It is essential to appoint a Public Prosecutor and Inspectors to carry out its provisions;"
  and whether, considering the very influential and representative character of the meeting referred to, and the importance to the public in being supplied with lard in its pure state when they ask for it under that name, he will consider what steps can be taken in the direction pointed out by the resolutions adopted at said meeting?
  MR. MADDEN: I have been informed that no such resolution has been received as that mentioned in the first paragraph of the question. I will, however, make inquiries into the matter.

  MR. DAVID M'GAW.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND): I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether Mr. David M'Gaw, of Enniskillen, has been paid the £200 offered to him in settlement of his claim in May last?
  A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. MAXWELL,): No payment has been made to Mr. McGaw. When his application was laid before the Lords of the Treasury, their Lordships felt themselves unable to renew the offer of 1884, having regard to the rent received in the interval by Mr. McGaw in excess of the value of his premises, and to the costs thrown upon the Department by his rejection of that offer. As an act of grace, however, and still denying any legal liability, they have authorised a payment to him of £100 on certain conditions, and the matter is under his consideration.

  CLERK OF THE BANDON UNION.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether it has been brought to the notice of the Local Government Board that the clerk of the Bandon Poor Law Union was absent from his office 12 days in December, 10 in January, 8 in February, 10 in April, and 10 in May; and, if brought under their notice, has the Board demanded any explanation from the clerk of this neglect of duty; and, if so, what explanation has been tendered?
  MR. MADDEN: It appears from a letter received from the clerk of the Bandon Union that he was absent from his office on the days mentioned in the question owing to ill-health; but he states that he is now recovered, and hopes to be able to attend at his office regularly in future.

  FERMOY PETTY SESSIONS.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Attorney Gensral for Ireland whether he is aware that at the last Fermoy Petty Sessions, Mr. Redmond Donegan was charged with and found guilty of
  1748
  assaulting Mr. J. D. Bremner, T.C., and was fined by the Magistrate 2s. 6d. and costs; that at the same Sessions Mr. James Maye, charged with a technical assault on a policeman (which occurred so far back as September, 1889), was sentenced to seven days' imprisonment at hard labour; and if he can explain why the latter case was tried before a Court constituted under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, consisting of two Resident Magistrates, whilst the former was tried before a Bench of ordinary Magistrates, under the ordinary law?
  MR. MADDEN: I am informed that the difference in the modes of procedure and in the punishments inflicted was due to the difference in the nature of the assaults. The assault on Mr. Bremner is reported to have been a very trifling one, committed by an old man on a comparatively young man in the course of an angry discussion. The other assault was not a technical one as suggested in the question, but an actual and deliberate one, committed in open Court, where Maye was at the time on trial, and where the constable was on duty.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: May I ask whether the difference in the procedure in the two cases was due to the fact that Maye was a Nationalist?
  MR. MADDEN: I say distinctly—no, Sir.

  THE EAST LANCASHIRE REGIMENT.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the report in the Newry Reporter of 26th June, 1890, of an action for trespass against Captain Irwin, of the East Lancashire Regiment, brought before the County Court Judge of Down at the last sitting of the County Court at Newry, from which it appears that, on the 15th July, 1889, Captain Irwin and about 60 men of his regiment were going through a "night attack," in the course of which a number of his men trespassed on the lands of Mr. James Goodman, of Cloghmore, and did damage to his crops; whether he has observed that it appeared in evidence that, when Mr. Goodman protested against the trespass on his crops, one of the soldiers pointed a revolver at him and threatened to shoot him; whether Mr. Goodman offered to leave to arbitration

  1749
  the amount of loss sustained by him; whether Colonel Griffiths, on 14th August last, in answer to a letter of Mr. T. J. Marron, solicitor for Mr. Goodman, referred Mr. Marron to Captain Irwin as—
  "The officer who was in sole command, and who was solely responsible for any occurrence connected with his party on that night"
  whether at the trial advantage was taken of the fact that the trespassers were under the immediate command of the colour sergeant, and that the proper defendant was not before the Court; and whether the Judge is correctly reported to have said—
  "He believed damage had been done by the military, but he could not hold Captian Irwin liable,"
  and he dismissed the case; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the matter, and see that fair compensation be given to Mr. Goodman for the damage done to his property by the soldiers on that occasion?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): It appears that in July, 1889, a patrol, consisting of a corporal and two privates of the East Lancashire Regiment, trespassed on Mr. Goodman's ground. No revolver was in possession of the party, and they had no blank or ball cartridge with them. One of the men was said to have pointed his rifle at Mr. Goodman. Captain Irwin, who was asked to settle the matter, offered to cover the alleged damage, which was refused, and Captain Irwin was unable to get any answer regarding it. A summons was taken out against Captain Irwin, but was dismissed owing to the non-appearance of the complainant. The case was brought forward again at the Quarter Sessions, and it appeared from the evidence he had before him the amount of compensation offered—namely, £1—was ample.
  MR. SEXTONinquired if the right hon. Gentleman had received the Report, from which it appeared that the County Court Judge thought the damage had been committed, and expressed no opinion as to the £5 claimed being excessive damage, and if the right hon. Gentleman himself would pay the £5, as the case was dismissed, because Captain Irwin was not the proper officer?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I am informed the case did not come on because the complainant did not appear. Under these circumstances, it is not likely I am going to pay the £5.
  MR. SEXTON: I have the Report to which I have referred in my possession.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: If the hon. Gentleman will let me see the Report I will consider whether there is anything further in it.

  MR. F. C. GARVEY.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that Francis C. Garvey, of Murrisk Abbey, Mayo, Ireland, who was appointed clerk of Petty Sessions for Louisburgh district by the Justices of said district, and also recently appointed Commissioner for taking affidavits by the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland, was dismissed his ship and the Service, he being then an officer in the Royal Navy, on a charge of larcency, and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment; and whether, in the face of the above-mentioned finding, he will be continued in the position of trust and emolument to which he has been appointed?
  MR. MADDEN: The Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks reports that the Petty Session clerk mentioned admits the truth of the allegations, but pleads that the occurrences took place when he was but 16 years of age. Had the matter been brought under the notice of the Lord Lieutenant at the time, I have no doubt that he would have given it careful attention in deciding whether the appointment should be made. But as the Registrar reports that the conduct of the clerk since his appointment seven years ago has been good, and that the inspection and inquiries which have from time to time been made show him to be perfectly trustworthy, His Excellency, having regard to all the circumstances, would not feel justified in dismissing him from the position.
  DR. TANNER: Am I to understand that a person who has been dismissed from Her Majesty's Service for theft is regarded by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland as a fit or proper person to hold this appointment. Is he not retained simply because he is a Protestant and an Orangeman?
  MR. MADDEN: After a service of seven years Mr. Garvey has proved to the heads of the Department that he is perfectly trustworthy, and it would not be right to go back upon matters which occurred so long before.

  THE DRILL GROUND AT NEW TOWNARDS.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the ground for the encampment of the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Irish Rifles at Newtownards, whether he is aware of the general dissatisfaction among the officers and men of the regiment on account of the unsuitable-ness and inconvenience of the present place of encampment; whether he is aware that the drill ground is small and bad, and the distance from the shooting range is so far that it takes three days to put a company through, each company firing 10 rounds a day; whether his attention has been called to the correspondence on the subject published in the Newtownards Chronicle of 28th June last and of the 5th instant; and whether, considering the statements therein and the complaints made by officers and men, he will make inquiry with the view to let them have the use of the huts at the shooting range when next up for drill, or if he will consider the desirability of securing a place of encampment convenient to the present shooting range?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The ground consists of 27 acres, and is in every way suitable for the purpose.

  DISTRICT INSPECTOR BALL.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he has now read the depositions in the case of "District Inspector Ball v. David Kent;" if he has seen the depositions of Edward Kent, who swears that he had about a score of lambs to sell at the fair, and that his brother, the defendant, came up followed by a constable, and that he told his brother that the lambs would not be taken from him if the constable remained alongside; and if, in view of this sworn statement of deponent, the Constabulary Authorities are entitled by law to order policemen to shadow cattledealers or farmers engaged in buying or selling transactions at fairs or markets in Ireland?
  MR. MADDEN: I have seen the depositions in the case referred to. Having regard to the charge on which the adjudication took place, it was not necessary to go into evidence as to the maintenance of the boycotting, which the police were endeavouring to put down; but I may state that no such orders were given as is assumed in the concluding paragraph of the question.

  DUBLIN POST OFFICE.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he is now in a position to state when the vacancies for first class sorters and overseers in the Dublin Post Office will be filled; and whether the increase of pay will date from the time the vacancies occurred?
  SIR H. MAXWELL: The authorities at Dublin have not yet been able to report favourably upon the qualifications of the members of the classes next below those upon which the vacancies exist. The vacancies cannot be filled until such Report has been received. As regards the latter part of the hon. Member's question, the Postmaster General cannot promise that the promotions, when promotions come to be made, will take effect from the date of the vacancies. It will, I understand, be a question with him whether the earliest period from which the higher pay should take effect should not be the date on which the recipients proved themselves qualified for the duties to which the pay attaches.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  DR. FITZGERALD: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether any representations have been made to the Police Authorities or to the Board of Works to take over, as quarters for married members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, the house in Carrickma-cross from which Mr. Thomas Phelan, J.P., was evicted; and, if so, whether there is any intention on the part of the Government of taking the house from Mr. Shirley?
  MR. MADDEN: No such representations have been made.

  THE TRAINING SHIP GRAMPIAN.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the following adver-

  1753
  tisement which appeared in the Belfast Evening Telegraqh—
  "Training Ship Grampian.—Wanted, a ship's cook; must be a Protestant. Application, with copies of testimonials, to be sent to the Captain Superintendent on board;"
  and whether the Admiralty approve of this exclusion of all but Protestants from the situation of a cook in a training ship?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The Grampian was lent by the Admiralty in 1871 to a committee of gentlemen representing the City of Belfast, for use as a training ship for the Mercantile Marine. The management of the institution rests entirely with the committee, and the Admiralty have no power to interfere in the selection of any of the seamen or domestics employed in the training ship.

  INCREASE OF SENTENCE ON APPEAL.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Recorder of Cork, in the appeal of Patrick Staunton, convicted of boycotting by the Resident Magistrates and sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour, told the defendant, in reply to some observations, "I have the power of giving you a little more;" "if you say much more I will give you three months more;" and finally adjudicated in the following terms: "I confirm the sentence; I give him another month—four months;" whether the increase of a sentence on appeal, because of observations made by the defendant, is in accordance with law; and whether the Executive will enforce the additional month's imprisonment?
  MR. MADDEN: I am not aware whether the Recorder of Cork made the observations attributed to him; but it appears from the entry in the Order Book that he confirmed the sentence, but varying it by increasing it from three months' hard labour to four months' hard labour. It is not within the province of the Executive Government to review or to discuss sentences pronounced by County Court Judges in appeals which may come before them. As regards the concluding paragraph, the Prisons Board will, of course, act in accordance with the warrant of com-
  1754
  mittal issued in pursuance of the order of the Judge.
  MR. SEXTON: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman read the report of the trial? Had the Recorder any legal power to increase the original sentences on appeal, not on account of further evidence, but in consequence of some language used by the defendant in Court? Has not the Executive power to release the prisoner when it chooses?
  MR. MADDEN: The Prisons Board have no power to do anything of the kind under the committal warrant. I have no right to review or discuss the Judgment of the Judge who made the order. There is no doubt as a general principle of law, and without discussing the facts of the case, that a County Court Judge, on appeal from a sentence—which amounts to a re-hearing of the case—has the right to impose the sentence which he considers should have been imposed by the Court below in the first instance.
  MR. SEXTON: Had the Judge a legal right to pronounce an increase of sentence in a case where nothing relevant to the original charge was adduced, but simply because the defendant used language which the Judge considered to be disrespectful, and could the Judge impose a sentence for contempt?
  MR. MADDEN: This is asking me not to answer a general question, but to review and discuss the legality of the decision of the Judge in the case. I must decline to express an opinion upon, or discuss in any way, the decision of the Judge.
  DR. TANNER: Was it not the fact that Mr. Hamilton had pronounced sentence upon the prisoner; that he subsequently cautioned him, and then increased the sentence by one month; and was not the second sentence deliberately given for contempt of Court?
  MR. MADDEN: It is not for me to say one way or the other.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: May I ask whether, in order to put an end to these scandals, the right hon. Gentleman will consider the propriety of such cases as this being tried by a Judge who is not himself a landlord.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. SEXTON: What is the remedy of the prisoner at the end of the original term of three months' imprisonment?
  MR. MADDEN: The legal remedy for any person who is in illegal custody is habeas corpus.

  THE SENTENCE ON MR. TULLY.
  DR. FITZGERALD: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, with reference to the treatment of Mr. Jasper Tully, editor of the Roscommon Herald, now a prisoner in Tullamore Gaol, if he can state what was the sentence imposed upon Mr. Jasper Tully; is he aware that he is engaged in the labour of sack-making, and that his hands are full of sores; that he has lost two stone in weight during the two months he has been in prison; and that he is now suffering from an attack of diarrhoea; and, if so, why is he not placed under hospital treatment; and if the sentence did not include hard labour, why is the work of sack-making imposed upon the prisoner?
  MR. MADDEN: The General Prisons Board report that Mr. Jasper Tully is in custody under sentences of 14 days and three calendar months' imprisonment, concurrently, without hard labour. During four days after committal to Tullamore Prison this prisoner made sacks, although informed that he could by Statute be exempted from labour by paying for his food. Since that time he has been taking advantage of the exemption; but he asked to be permitted to have a few sacks to pass his time, and the Governor gave them on the clear understanding that it was his own desire. His hands have not suffered in any way as alleged. He lost 81b., not 281b. in weight subsequently to committal, but has since regained] lb. He is not suffering from diarrhoea. He had a slight attack for four days, but it was of such a nature as not to render hospital treatment necessary. The Board are required by Statute to provide employment for prisoners, though not sentenced to hard labour. Sack-making untasked is one of the forms of employment so provided.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask whether, according to a statement publicly made, this treatment is in accordance with the sentence? From the instant Mr. Tully entered gaol he has been subjected to the most insulting and degrading treatment; not content with classing him with the
  1756
  ordinary criminals and setting him to pick oakum, he has been put to sack-making in the prison, in which work his hands and fingers have been torn and lacerated in the most cruel manner; his dietary has been changed, and the class of food kept down in his case, though he has repeatedly asked for a change; he further complains of the constant annoyance and supervision to which he is subjected; that his clothes are taken away from him and rummaged by the warders; and that he is left standing naked on a stone-flagged cell.
  MR. MADDEN: Certain of those statements are not met by the information in my possession; but, so far as the statements contained in the question relating to oakum-picking and sack-making are concerned, they are absolutely unfounded. When Mr. Tully was given sacks to make, he was told that he might, under Statute, exempt himself from doing so. Mr. Tully elected to exempt himself by making a payment for food; but subsequently sacks were given to him at his own request, and in order to find him employment.
  MR. SEXTON: I will take the earliest, possible opportunity of bringing this case under the notice of the House.
  MR. MADDEN: I can only answer the question according to the information which has been placed before me; but if the hon. Member will put a question on the Paper as to the other points, I will try to find out.
  MR. SEXTON: I will do so tomorrow.
  DR. FITZGERALD: I am compelled to say that not a single particle of the reply of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is true. [Cries of "Order !"], Sack making is hard labour in Tullamore Prison. If the right hon. Gentleman does not know that that is so, I can tell him from my own experience that it is. Why, then, was a person who was not, sentenced to hard labour put to sack-making?
  [No answer was returned.]

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES AT CLOGHERHEAD.
  MR. NOLAN): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the insanitary condition of a large number of labourers'

  1757
  cottages at Clogherhead, County Louth, and to the difficulty of dealing with them, owing to the absence of other houses of any kind available for the labourers in the neighbourhood; and whether, under the circumstances, he will instruct the Local Government Board to confer with the Local Sanitary Authority, with a view to providing suitable accommodation for these people before they are driven from their present dwellings?
  MR. MADDEN: The insanitary condition of the village referred to has, I am informed, been for some months engaging the attention of the Drogheda Board of Guardians. They have already taken steps to deal with the matter, and state that it shall continue to have their attention until the village is improved.

  FREE TRADE AT ZANZIBAR.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is provided in Article VII. of the Commercial Treaty of 1886, that
  "A duty not exceeding five per cent. shall be paid at that port in the dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar where the goods are first landed, and on payment thereof such goods shall thereafter be exempt within the Zanzibar dominions from all other Customs Duties or Taxes levied by or on behalf of the Government of His Highness the Sultan";
  and whether, in the event of the mainland portion of the Sultanate of Zanzibar being ceded to Germany, goods which have paid the 5 per cent. duty on entering the island, would be liable to pay another 5 per cent. duty on entering the mainland?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: It may be assumed that if the mainland and Zanzibar are separated, goods coming from the latter would certainly be treated like goods coming from any other foreign country. The best security against undue burdens upon trade is that they would tend to divert it to another sphere.
  MR. SUMMERS: Do I understand the Under Secretary to say that, under the Anglo-German Treaty, there will be an end of Free Trade between the Island of Zanzibar and the mainland?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I have answered that question repeatedly. If the mainland of Zanzibar or part of it falls into the hands of the German Government it
  1758
  will be subject either to the conditions of the Commercial Treaty with Zanzibar or to those of the Berlin and Brussels Act.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Are goods from Zanzibar free to enter that portion of the mainland where the Sultan's flag flies without paying additional duty?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Certainly.
  MR. BRYCE: May I ask whether the effect of the Anglo-German Agreement will not practically be to abrogate the Zanzibar Treaty of Commerce?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I understand the German Government desire to be held by the terms of the Zanzibar Treaty of Commerce.

  THE CASE OF MESSRS. HEATH AND SMITH.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will lay upon the Table a Copy of the General Order of Customs, No. 67, 1890, and the correspondence between the Treasury and the Commissioners of Customs relating to the case of Messrs. Heath and Smith, two officers of Customs, recently punished for communicating with the private secretary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of promotion in the Department?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I will lay Papers on the Table; but I may point out at once that the officers were, of course, not punished for communicating with my private secretary. What their offence was will appear from the Papers.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: When will the Papers be presented?
  MR. GOSCHEN: In a few days.

  THE DEATH OF CHRISTOPHER O'CONNOR.
  MR. DALTON (for Mr. WILLIAM CORBET, Wicklow, E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has the inquiry promised into the death of Christopher O'Connor, a patient in the Richmond District Lunatic Asylum, been held; and, if so, what is the result; has the verdict of the Coroner's Jury, who found that death was caused by violence, been upheld; has anyone been punished in connection with the case; and, if not, what steps will be taken to bring the guilt home to whoever inflicted the

  1759
  injuries; and what condensation will be given to the widow and orphans?
  MR. MADDEN: My answer to the first two paragraphs is in the affirmative. The services of an attendant accused of having inflicted the injuries have been dispensed with by the Board of Governors, and the Papers in the entire case have been submitted by the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums for the consideration of the Executive Government.

  CASE OF TRESPASS AT DUNFANAGHY.
  MR. DALTON: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if his attention has been called to the proceedings at Dunfanaghy Petty Sessions on the 28th of June, in the case of Mr. Crawford against Derryheriff peasants for trespass, and wherein the Magistrates made an order that the tenants should pay £2 2s. solicitor's fees; and whether, seeing that it was afterwards proved that the Magistrates had no jurisdiction, they were within their right in making this order?
  MR. MADDEN: I am informed that when the cases referred to came before the Court on 28th June they were adjourned on the application of the defendants on the usual terms of their paying the cost of the day. The cases were not gone into at all on that day. On 12th July they again came before the Court. One of the defendants was fined and the remaining cases adjourned, pending the result of a case stated. It does not appear from any information before me that the Magistrates had no jurisdiction.

  GAOL MORTALITY IN BENGAL.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, while the average town mortality in Bengal in 1889 was 25·03 per 1,000, the gaol death rate in the same Presidency was 45·8 per 1,000, and in other parts of India much higher, attaining in some instances to 120 per 1,000; whether the regulations under which Indian gaols are con-ducted were framed by gaol officials; and whether the Secretary of State will direct the attention of the Government of India to this excessive mortality, with a view to the adoption of means to secure its reduction to at least the average
  1760
  mortality of the district in which each gaol is situated?
  SIR J. GORST: The official Returns for 1889 have not yet been received. In 1888 the death-rate in gaols was 44·7 for Bengal, and 33·1 for the whole of India, which was a satisfactory reduction from 35·6, the death-rate of the preceding year. The regulations are framed by the Government of India. The attention of the Secretary of State and Government of India has for some time past been directed to the mortality in gaols; and the Government of India is now engaged, in concert with the Local Governments, in considering suggestions for endeavouring to diminish the amount.

  EX-CONSTABLE BRENNAN.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask whether ex-Constable Peter Brennan, late of the Royal Irish Constabulary, who was convicted by a Coroner's Jury of wilful murder, has been allowed or encouraged to retire from the police, and granted a pension of £72 per annum; and whether Brennan, having failed in business as a publican in Kinsale, has been recently employed as a bailiff by the Sheriff for the County of Cork?
  MR. MADDEN: The Constabulary Authorities report that it is the case that the ex-sergeant named was included with other members of the Force in a verdict of wilful murder, found by a Coroner's Jury, but that that verdict was subsequently quashed as an improper one by the Superior Court. He retired in ordinary course, after 30 years' service, with the pension mentioned. It is the case that he subsequently failed in business. This failure was, I am informed, owing to the system of boycotting instituted against him. He is now employed as stated in the question.
  DR. TANNER: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman try and impress upon the Executive Government in Ireland the desirability of ceasing to employ murderers and thieves for the purpose of administering the law?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  THE PELICAN CLUB.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the Home Secretary whether he can now state what was the character of the "boxing matches" at the Pelican Club; and whether he has

  1761
  obtained any reports from the police about it, or from any other quarter than "a member of the Committee of the Pelican Club?"
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that he has no information to the effect that fights of an illegal character are carried on at the Pelican Club, nor has he reason to believe that such is the case. If the hon. Member is in possession of evidence to the contrary effect, and, will submit it to me, I will take what steps are necessary to provide against! any infraction of the law.

  SCOTCH ECCLESIASTICS AND PRECEDENCE.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether any princely rank had been accorded to the Moderator of the Free Church of Scotland, such as had been accorded to Cardinal Manning, as head ecclesiastic in England of another unestablished Church?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am not aware of any question having arisen on this point.

  DECORATION OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
  MR. JAMES ROWLANDS): I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the existing contracts for decorating and painting the House of Commons and public offices will shortly terminate: and whether in the new contracts he will stipulate with the contractors that they shall pay a standard rate of wages to the workmen in the particular trades?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): The general contract in which the decorating and painting of the House of Commons is included will terminate next year. A Departmental Committee is now sitting to inquire into the question of the terms' upon which new contracts for such services shall be made.

  WOOLWICH ARSENAL—CASE OF MR. B. DUNN.
  MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Mr. Bernard Dunn was the first person who called the attention of the
  1762
  Government to the fact that bad articles and materials were being passed into Woolwich Arsenal; whether Colonel Barrington reported that Mr. Dunn was misinformed; since then the Judge Advocate General has reported that Mr. Dunn's allegations were well founded, and that it was unfortunate that the higher officials did not take more notice of them when they were first made; whether Mr. Dunn frequently complained that he was being unjustly treated by the officials; and has any inquiry been made into his charges against the officials; if so, by whom, and when; if not, considering the services Mr. Dunn has rendered, whether he will cause an impartial inquiry to be made into the charges made by Mr. Dunn against the officials in the Department in which he was employed, and from which he has been discharged?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: As I have already stated in this House, Mr. Moody was the principal complainant as to the bad material passed into the Arsenal; but he was supported by Mr. Dunn. The second and third paragraphs of the hon. Member's question appear to be a correct statement of facts. Mr. Dunn's complaints have been most fully inquired into, as I have more than once informed the House. Mr. Dunn has now been discharged for insubordinate c induct, and I cannot undertake to make further inquiries into his case.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: May I ask whether it has not been well understood at Woolwich that Dunn is a marked man?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I am quite sure that is not the case.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I put it to the Secretary of State whether of his own knowledge, months ago, a Member of the Government did not intimate his own opinion that Dunn ought to be "sacked"?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I am not aware who the Member of the Government alluded to is.
  MR. HANBURY: Since the Secretary of State has punished Dunn so severely, will he also inquire into the case of those men against whom Dunn brought and proved the charge that they had introduced bad material into Her Majesty's Services.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I have made such inquiry, as I have told the House several times already.
  MR. HANBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what he has done?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I troubled the House with a speech of nearly an hour's length on this subject last Session, and explained what I had done.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: I wish to know whether Dunn has not made an allegation, supported by evidence, to the Secretary of State for War since the inquiry presided over by the Judge Advocate, as to whether he wishes for further inquiry?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: It is true Dunn did supply me with additional evidence. Upon this I had caused to be made a most careful and independent inquiry, which proved beyond any doubt that the complaint was entirely unfounded.

  VOLUNTEER OFFICERS AT COURT.
  MR. TATTON EGERTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is true that Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to place officers of the Volunteer Force in the same position with regard to presentations at Court as officers of the Auxiliary Forces?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I have very great pleasure in informing my hon. Friend that Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to place Volunteer officers in an exactly similar position to officers of the rest of the Army as regards presentation at Court.

  OUTRAGES IN ARMENIA.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the statement in the Daily News of 2nd August, by telegram from Erivan, that a fortnight ago Kurds attempted to carry off a newly-married Armenian woman from the village of Vartenis, near Moosh, and a struggle ensued, in which two Armenians and six Kurds were killed; whether he will make inquires as to the facts of the case, and generally impress on the Porte the necessity of protecting its Christian Armenian subjects from the attacks of wild Kurds; and of the further statement that, in the district of Alashgerd, the condition of the Armenian peasants is miserable beyond description, as the
  1764
  petty Turkish officials urge the Kurds to attack the villagers and harry them?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Her Majesty's Government have received reports that the country is in a disturbed state, but have no knowledge of the particular outrages referred to. The district of Alashgird is one in which the inhabitants are specially liable to insecurity. It is a frontier district, bounded on the north by the Russian Frontier, which the Kurds are continually crossing and re-crossing. Many of the Kurds are said to-be now Russian subjects.
  MR. SCHWANN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a telegram received to-day states that Martini-Henry rifles have been distributed amongst the Kurds at several places in America?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I cannot undertake to receive telegrams in newspapers when they arrive as well-founded. No doubt, if they are well-founded, we shall hear of it in due course.
  MR. SCHWANN: I would ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to a statement in the Daily News of 2nd August (from Reuter's Agency, Constantinople, dated 31st July), that the mixed council, i.e., civil and religious councils combined, held on Tuesday last, at the Armenian Patriarchate in Constantinople, to discuss the late message or Takrir, from the Secretary to the Sultan, Sureya Pasha to Monsignor Achikian, declared that the recent demonstration was not directed against the Patriarch personally, but was the outcome of the feeling of despair prevailing amongst the Armenian population, and of the failure of the Porte to reply to any of the numerous memorials addressed to it by the Patriarch, respecting the deplorable state of the Armenian population; and whether, in view of there being approximately some 250,000 Armenians in Constantinople, many of them refugees from Armenia, he will make representations to the Porte of the very serious risk it runs by postponing remedial measures of a conciliatory character in Armenia?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: We have not received as yet any official information as to this meeting. The Porte is well aware that Her Majesty's Government are in favour of a conciliatory policy towards the Armenians; but without

  1765
  further particulars, I am unable to say whether this would be a favourable opportunity for pressing our views.
  MR. BRYCE: I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the recent grave disturbances among the Armenian subjects of the Sultan at Constantinople, as well as in Erzeroum, and at Moush, arising from the outrages of the Kurds, the oppression of the officials, and the impossibility of obtaining justice upon Mussulman offenders; and whether, having regard to the risk that an insurrection or occupation by some other Power may be provoked by further attempts at repression and denials of justice, Her Majesty's Government are advising, or will advise, the Sultan to adopt a more conciliatory policy, and will inform him that they regard the Anglo-Turkish Convention of 1878 as having lapsed, owing to the neglect of Turkey to introduce the reforms undertaken by that Instrument?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: (1) Her Majesty's Representatives lose no opportunity of bringing well-authenticated cases of hardship and ill-treatment to the notice of the Turkish Authorities. (2) It would not be expedient for me to make any statement in regard to communications which Her Majesty's Government may think it their duty to make to the Porte on the subject.
  MR. BRYCE: I would ask whether, seeing the extreme urgency of the matter, the Government will make any representations? These disturbances at Erzeroum and Constantinople have been of a most serious character, and portend danger.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I have already-stated what has been done. Her Majesty's Government will make representations if they think they will be attended with good effect. I am not prepared to say whether the Government is making any special representations on this subject at this moment. I wish to remind the House that we are not yet fully informed as to the facts.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I do not desire to press the right hon. Gentleman unduly, but I wish to remind him that in this particular case, if our remonstrances are not attended to, we can give full notice to the Porte that we have power under
  1766
  our Treaty with the Porte and the guarantee given against the intervention of a Foreign Power, to take certain steps in case of the misgovernment of the country being continued.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the events referred to are of a character that undoubtedly requires great consideration, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will see that a premature answer would be most inconvenient.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman informed me that the Report of Mr. Clifford Lloyd would not be laid on the Table before the end of the Session. I would ask him whether, whatever the length of the Session, we are not to be made acquainted at least with the substance of that Report?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I should be happy to give the best information in our possession; but since I last made a statement on this subject, the Government have received no further information.

  FREE TRADE ON THE AFRICAN COAST.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, with reference to Article 1. of the General Act of the Conference of Berlin (1885) by which the Conference Powers agree to use their good offices with the Governments established on the African shore of the Indian Ocean for the purpose of obtaining their approval to the establishment of complete Free Trade within their respective territories, and in any case of securing the most favourable conditions to the transit (traffic) of all nations, the Conference Powers have used or intend to use their good offices in the direction indicated?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Her Majesty's Government have endeavoured to obtain as far as possible the relief of trade on the African coast from burdens and hindrances; they have not felt it to be their special duty to press upon the Sultan of Zanzibar the abolition of all Import Duties, as their Commercial Treaty afforded sufficient protection. The Powers who were parties to the Berlin Act have now agreed upon certain modifications.

  THE CASE OF MR. PERCY MAGAN, J.P.
  MR. HAYDEN): I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he can state what decision has been come to by the Irish Law Officers regarding the communication received by the Land Commissioners from Mr. Percy Magan, J.P., on the 22nd July, purporting to be an explanation of the charges of fraud brought against him; and whether the Government is still determined to take no steps to have Mr. Magan suspended from the Commission of the Peace pending proceedings for the recovery of the money alleged to have been obtained by false representations under the Arrears Act?
  MR. MADDEN: I have this day received the Papers in this case, which I shall deal with in due course.

  EVICTIONS ON BLASKET ISLANDS.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether, having regard to the 125th section of "The Civil Bill (Ireland) Act, 1851," which protects from seizure under Civil Bill Decree "the tools and implements of the trade or business of any debtor" he has made inquiry as to the seizure of the boats of the fishermen of Blasket Islands by the Sheriff, who was brought there on board H.M. Man-of-War the Britomart?
  MR. MADDEN: I have made inquiries on the subject of the question of the right hon. Member, and I am informed that the seizure in question was not made under Civil Bill Decree. The section referred to does not, therefore, apply.
  MR. SEXTON: Is it not the case that private persons were carried in this vessel on the occasion in question, and that it was used for seizing and carrying away the property of private persons?
  MR. MADDEN: A distress was levied; and if its legality is questioned, the matter can be tested in the usual way.

  PRECEDENCE.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury which of Her Majesty's Ministers advises Her Majesty in matters of Precedence?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It is not the duty of any Minister to advise Her Majesty in matters of Precedence, except when
  1768
  such matters may be connected with the particular Department of which he is the head.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I wish to ask, as to a question of Precedence which has arisen with regard to the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes, to what Department should a question be addressed?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think that a question should be addressed to the Minister who was in office at the time, and upon whose advice the Commission was issued.

  COPIES OF PRIVATE BILLS.
  MR. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether arrangements can be made by which Members of this House may be in future supplied with Copies of Private Bills introduced by the London County Council prior to the Second Reading, especially such Bills as contain provisions of a public or general character? I would point out that the present mode by which the County Council have Bills delivered to Members of this House often leads to very long discussions on the Third Reading.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: If the hon. Member will turn to Standing Orders 203 and 213, he will find that provision is made that Copies of Private Bills are obtainable by Members at the Vote Office.
  MR. WEBSTER: I applied for a London County Council Bill at the Vote Office just before it came on, and I could not obtain one.

  COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) BILL.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, with regard to the Companies (Winding-up) Bill, which has been very considerably altered by the House of Lords, and in which important provisions which had been struck out in this House have been restored, he will arrange that the Lords Amendments shall not be considered until this House has had fair notice on the Paper, and an opportunity of discussing them before midnight; and as regards other Bills which are coming down from the Lords with Amendments, what notice he will give before such Amendments are considered?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am informed that there has only been one alteration of importance made in the Companies (Winding-up) Bill, and that this was due not to the initiative of the Government, but to the unanimous feeling of noble and learned Lords in another place.
  MR. KIMBER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what notice will be given?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Notice in the Votes.
  MR. KIMBER: But how much notice? A Bill comes down to this House, and is on the Paper on the day on which the consideration is taken.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I sought to draw attention to this matter the other day. An extremely difficult position might be brought about through taking the consideration of the Lords Amendment without any notice whatever.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It is not at all desirable that Lords Amendments should be taken without notice unless they are merely formal or verbal Amendments. Where there is any matter of substance, I will undertake that notice be placed on the Paper.
  MR. KIMBER: The Bill referred to in my question is one in which the most important and radical alterations have been made. I wish to know from the right hon. Gentleman how much notice will be given before the Bill is taken.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It is the rule that alterations of that character should be printed and circulated with the Votes. The Bill cannot be taken until that Paper has been circulated. I apprehend that that must be held to be sufficient notice.

  CASE OF H. LOUGHRAN.
  MR. HENRY CAMPBELL): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the case of a man named Henry Loughran, Wattle Bridge, Bel-turbet, who was employed as a collector and lock keeper on the Ulster Canal from March 1873 to April 1889, and was entrusted by the Board of Works with the payment of the fortnightly wages to the labourers on the canal from Lough Erne to Charlemont, a distance of 4G miles, bat received no remuneration for the latter service from March 1873
  1770
  to 1880, when the Treasury granted him an allowance of 7s. 6d. for each fortnightly payment up to the date of his discharge in 1880; and, if so, whether he will endeavour to induce the Treasury to pay Loughran a like sum for his services in connection with the fortnightly payments of the labourers' wages during the years from March 1873 to the end of 1880?
  MR. JACKSON: I understand that the facts are correctly stated by the hon. Member. I will make inquiries on the subject, and will communicate my decision to the hon. Member.

  COUNTY COUNCIL FUNDS.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: In the interests of the public, who are much mystified on the subject, I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer at how much he estimates the sum placed at the disposal of the County Councils for technical (including agricultural and commercial) education in England by the Resolution of the House of Commons on Friday, and at how much he estimates the sum applicable to Wales for intermediate education by Resolution of the same date?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The question of the hon. Member couveys a wrong impression. The money is not placed at the disposal of the County Councils for the purpose stated, but for all such purposes as the Councils were empowered to apply it, and amongst them is technical education. The amount for England and Wales is £743,000. The sum for England, exclusive of Monmouthshire, is £709,000, and £34,000 for Wales and Monmouthshire.

  THE IRISH POTATO CROP.
  MR. CRILLY): I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland a question of which I have given him private notice, and which nearly concerns my own constituency. Has his attention been called to the following paragraph in to-day's Daily News: —
  "At the Killala Board of Guardians yesterday great apprehension was expressed at the probability of a famine along the West Coast through the failure of the potato crop. A Guardian stated that he had been through three divisions of the Union and the crop was fast decaying, and the people were in a dreadful state of anxiety as to the future. Eight or 10 days ago the crop looked fairly well, but it

  1771
  was wasted and burnt up with the blight. A resolution calling the attention of the Local Government Board to the matter, and through them the attention of the Government, was adopted."
  I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is in a position to say that there is any basis of truth for the paragraph, or can he give us any information in addition to the statement made the other day in the House by the Chief Secretary as to the truth or otherwise of the alleged failure of the potato crop in North Mayo and other parts of Ireland?
  MR. MADDEN: The importance of the subject to the hon. Member's constituents quite justifies him in putting the question to me. The subject is now receiving the anxious and constant attention of the Government in reference to various parts of Ireland. I only received the hon. Member's notice as I came down to the House, and I am unable to make any statement as to any special part of the country.
  MR. SEXTON: A promise was made, I think, more than a year ago that Reports which have already been made by the Inspectors of the Board should be laid on the Table, and I hope they will be so laid.
  MR. MADDEN: I will make inquiries on the subject.

  BISHOPS IN CYPRUS
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies with reference to the Proclamation read by the Queen's High Commissioner, and afterwards promulgated in Turkish and Greek throughout the island, on the occasion of the assumption of the Government of the Island of Cyprus in the name of Her Majesty, confirming the Cypriotes, both Moslems and Christians, in all the rights and privileges they then enjoyed; whether one of those privileges was that the name of an Orthodox Bishop was submitted, after the election and consecration of the Prelate, to His Imperial Majesty the Sultan for approval and confirmation; and whether, as the formal recognition of a Bishop is a question quite apart from the levying of episcopal dues and does not depend upon any Council, legislative or otherwise, the Secretary of
  1772
  State will re-consider his recent decision' and recommend the Queen to confirm, by Warrant under the Royal Sign Manual, the election of the Bishops of Kition, Kyrenia, and Paphos, in accordance with the prayer of the Petition presented be the Archbishop of Cyprus?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The Proclamation in question does not altogether accord with the description of it contained in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question, although, of course, there is no intention of interfering with the religious privileges of the inhabitants. Her Majesty's Government are, however, advised that the necessity of obtaining the Sultan's confirmation of a Bishop's election was not a privilege of the inhabitants, but a restriction on a privilege. The freedom of Christian communities to elect their Bishops is now absolute and unqualified. The Bishops are, of course, fully recognised by the Local Authorities for all legal and social purposes as soon as elected.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the, right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposes to take the Foreign Office Vote?
MR. W. H. SMITH: I regret to say that we made very slow progress with the Police Bill on Saturday. We are anxious to bring on the Foreign Office Vote as soon as possible, but we cannot do so until the Bills now before the House are completed. It rests with hon. Members opposite themselves to forward the business of the House, and I would most earnestly appeal to those who ask for consideration to show some of that consideration which they owe to their colleagues in this House, so as to enable us to make such progress with business as is reasonable. We might well have expected that greater progress would be made on Saturday. In the circumstances, I cannot say when the Foreign Office Vote will be taken.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSON): After what business will the Vote be taken?
MR. W. H. SMITH.: After the Bills now before the House have been completed. There is only one Vote for the Foreign Office. I wish to give notice that to-morrow I shall move the suspension of the 12 o'clock Rule, as far as

1773
Government business is concerned, for the remainder of the Session.
MR. W. A. MACDONALD: Can the right hon. Gentle-man inform the House when the Irish Census Bill will be taken?
MR. W. H. SMITH: The English and Scotch Bills stand before that measure, and the Irish Bill will be taken directly after them.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to inform the House what he is going to do with the Savings Banks Bill? The right hon. Gentleman will remember that about a week ago he stated that the Bill would not be proceeded with if it were opposed, and now there were 39 notices of opposition against the measure.
MR. BARTLEY): The Savings Banks Bill is brought forward in the interests of 1,500,000 persons, and I should like to ask whether it is not a fact that a few Members opposite are alone responsible for the opposition to it.
MR. A. O'CONNOR: I have to ask whether the Government intend to proceed with the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Bill and the Registration of Assurances (Ireland) Bill?
MR. MADDEN: These Bills contain details which certainly require discussion. I do not intend to proceed with them this Session, but they will be re-introduced next Session. The Orders will be read and discharged.
MR. PHILIPPS: May I ask when the Scotch Estimates will fee submitted?
MR. HUNTER): Is it the intention of the Government to take the Second Reading of the Factors (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill before the Foreign Office Vote?
MR. HOWELL): May I ask whether the Savings Banks Bill had not been the subject of most careful consideration in a Committee upstairs?
MR. W. H. SMITH: I believe that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green has correctly represented the origin of the Savings Banks Bill. It is no doubt the result of a very careful inquiry before the Committee, and the desire of the Committee that the Bill should pass is
1774
not confined to any section or Party in this House, but is, I believe, as widespread on the other side of the House as on this. We desire to provide satisfactory security for the savings of the working classes of this country. The present arrangements do not afford adequate security, and the Government hope to provide such security by the adoption of this measure. If the Bill should be defeated this Session by any dilatory opposition, the whole responsibility for any evils that may occur in connection with savings banks next year must rest on hon. Members who oppose the measure. I cannot say this evening whether it will be proceeded with or not in case of a continuance of the kind of opposition which it has met. To the hon. Member for Lanarkshire I may point out that I have already said that the Scotch Estimates will follow the Foreign Office Vote. The Factors Bill was, I thought, an uncontested measure, but it appears that the hon. Member for Aberdeen wishes to oppose it.
MR. HUNTER: What I object to is the introduction in the dying days of the Session of Bills seriously altering and affecting Scotch law when there is no time for their consideration.
MR. W. H. SMITH: The Bill has appeared upon the Paper for many weeks, and it has been considered by the House of Lords with great care. It is a legal measure of great advantage to the public.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION LAW AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 89.)
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Shrewsbury and Holyhead Road (Anglesey and. Carnarvon) Bill, without any amendment; Allotments Act (1887) Amendment Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to make better provision for the Elementary Education of Blind and Deaf Children in England and Wales." [Elementary Education (Blind and Deaf) Bill [Lords].

STATUTE LAW REVISION (No. 2) BILL [LORDS].—(No. 405.)
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 290.)
  Bill as amended, considered.
  MR. J. KELLY): I wish to move the Amendment which I have placed upon the paper. There are many things that are likely to cause nuisances injurious to health, although I cannot but regard as what may properly be termed "grandmotherly legislation" the provision which says, "If any person allows or permits any water to enter into any drain, and communicate with any pure water of the temperature of 103° Fahrenheit, which alone or in combination with sewage is likely to cause injury to health, that person shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £10." I now beg to move my Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 16, page 7, lines 17 and 18, to leave oat "is likely to cause a nuisance or to be" and insert "causes a nuisance or is injurious."—(Mr. Kelly.)
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): I would suggest that the object of the hon. Member would be better met by inserting the words, "causes a nuisance which is dangerous or injurious."
  DR. CLARK: We ought to have a definition of the word dangerous. We can understand what is meant by injurious to health, but the word dangerous has a wider scope.
  MR. RITCHIE: The word dangerous is only used here as an alternative to injurious, namely dangerous or injurious.
  MR. KELLY: I am willing to accept the right hon. Gentleman's proposal.
  Amendment as amended put and agreed to.
  Consequential Amendments agreed to.
  MR. KELLY: When this Bill was in Committee, I moved to strike out the whole of Clause 42, but the
  1776
  House was unwilling to accede to my Amendment. I now move after the word "works," to insert "but in every case including sewering and metalling." The Bill proposes a rather singular and most drastic change in our law. When the law on the subject was considered before, it was made much more stringent. I desire to call the attention of the House to Section 70 of the Act of 1848, which says streets are not to be repaired out of the rates before-being
  "Sewered, levelled, paved, flagged, and channelled, to the satisfaction of a Local Board of Health."
  In 1875 the conditions under which private roads were to be declared repairable by the ratepayers were made even more stringent, and it was stipulated that no local authority should have power to take over a private road to be repaired by the inhabitants, unless it were channelled, sewered, paved, metalled, flagged, made good, and lighted. Instead, therefore, of cutting down the obligations cast on the owner of a private road which it was desired to make repairable by the inhabitants at large, they were absolutely enlarged. Now it seems to me a somewhat startling proposition that the enormous burden of metalling, sewering, kerbing, and lighting the road should be cast upon the ratepayers. If the right hon. Gentleman will pardon me, he will find that I am justified in putting the interpretation which I do on the words "any of the works mentioned." The right hon. Gentleman will at once admit that "any" means any one of these works. One of these works is levelling. Therefore, if a man levels the road, and has sufficient interest with the local board or local authority, he may be relieved from the cost of sewering and metalling, and the whole of the charge will be thrown upon the unhappy ratepayer. I would like to know why this startling change is to be made. I may say that before I put down this Amendment the President of the Board of Trade stated, in answer to a letter which I then addressed him on the subject, that there was a very good reason, from his point of view, for this drastic alteration of the law. It must be apparent that wherever the speculative builder has sufficient influence to

  1777
  induce the members of the Local Board to take over the road, he will be able to cast upon the ratepayers of the district an enormous and perfectly new burden, On this point I should like to quote a few words from a very great Judge—the late Sir George Jessel. In the Judgment of "the Attorney General v. Bidder," he said:—
  "In the first place it is plain tnat the public are to he considered. The expense of future repairs would he much greater when the road was not properly formed than when it was properly formed. That is one thing, and the next thing to be considered is that you are not to sacrifice the interests of the public to the interests of the speculative builder, or the owner of building land. It was not intended that the public were to make roads or building land for the benefit of the building owner. He was to pay proper expenses and to mate a proper road, and then if it was a beneficial road or street to the public the Urban Authority would take to it. Therefore the Legislature says; when a great many things have been done, and not till then you may dedicate to the use of the public. But all those things are to be done,"
  I know that it will be said that there are cases on which the operation of this section of the Act of 1875 has been found to be very troublesome and irksome, and, indeed, injurious. It will be further objected that this Bill is only permissive in its character. That is just the class of legislation to which I most object. If the thing is right, let the Legislature say it shall be done, and then it will be properly considered; but if it comes down in the form of a permissive enactment from a Committee up-stairs, and the hon. Members have never had any opportunity of considering or sanctioning it, I say it is a dangerous thing to do, and it is inviting the Local Authority to do that which we dare not tell them to do. Permissive legislation is to my mind prima facie absolutely wrong. If the speculative builder is to have these advantages, let the House say so boldly, and let them say that the unhappy ratepayers are to pay these large sums to the speculative builders. Do not let it be permissive, because that simply means that where the speculative builder has sufficient influence he will got the benefit of it, and where he has not it will never be used. One difficulty which will be urged is that the Local Authorities have taken over roads which they ought not to have taken over. I believe that is perfectly true. I will tell you what these Local
  1778
  Authorities will do the moment this Act is passed. They will issue a new notice at the end of the month to secure themselves against any illegalities they have committed. I do not want the Local Authorities to commit any illegalities. Let the Local Authorities obey the law; if they do not, let them take the consequences. I would like the Committee to consider the class of road which will be taken over. It will be the road fringed by villas with very long frontages and in respect of which exceedingly small rates are really levied. Hon. Members know something about rating inside the Metropolis, and they know that there the shops and small houses are very highly rated, whereas the villas which fringe the road and have large frontages get off uncommonly cheaply. I would invite the House to say that this class of persons shall not be relieved at the expense of the ratepayers of the covenants which they have chosen to enter into voluntarily when signing their leases. What the House has to guard against is jobbery and corruption on the Local Boards. I believe there are cases—at least I am told there are cases—in which it would be in the interests of the public that such roads should be taken over. Let it be so. But let it be done only under the sanction of the Local Government Board. Let the ratepayers be protected. Everybody knows as much as I do about the influences at work upon these petty Local Boards, and that the whole cost of these roads taken over will be cast upon the ratepayers, must, I think, hesitate before making such a momentous change of the law as is proposed by Clause 42 of this Bill.
  Amendment proposed, in page 17, line 40, after the word "works," to insert the words "but in every case including sewering and metalling."— (Mr. John Kelly.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RITCHIE: From the observations of the hon. Gentleman, one would imagine that our Town Councils and Local Boards were filled with men whose sole object, though representing the ratepayers, was to protect the interests of the speculative builders. The history of this clause is very simple. Prior to the

  1779
  judgment to which the hon. Member has referred, Local Boards had never believed that it was necessary, under the provisions of the existing law, that all the various matters to which he refers, such as lighting, paving, channelling, curbing, metalling, flagging, and sewering, must be done before they took over the road. It is quite obvious that a compliance with all these requirements was entirely unnecessary in the case of many of the roads which they took over. The decision to which the hon. Member referred caused enormous inconvenience to Town Councils and Local Authorities. It is not a new matter for Parliament to deal with this particular question. There is a provision in a Bill which passed this House in 1886 entirely analagous to the proposal now made in this Bill.
  MR. STOREY: What was the name of the Bill?
  MR. RITCHIE: It was the Public Health Acts (Improvements Expenses) Bill of 1886, and the clause to which I refer provided that the Town Council or Local Authority should have the liberty of saying whether these provisions should be carried out before a road is taken over. That is a principle to which I think hardly any one can object. Our opinion is, and the opinion of the Local Government Board is, that Parliament may properly be asked to give this authority to the local governing bodies without the smallest danger of those evils which the hon. Gentleman thinks may arise. The hon. Gentleman admitted that there are cases in which it would be absurd to call upon anybody to do all these various matters provided in the original Act.
  MR. KELLY: I never said that. On the contrary, I said that whatever might be the case, they ought to do the metalling and sewering.
  MR. RITCHIE: Well, the hon. Member, at any rate, admits that there are cases in which the provisions of the existing law might cause considerable inconvenience, and he says in that case "let there be an appeal to the Local Government Board, whose judgment shall be final in the matter." But the Local Government Board has already sufficient burdens on its shoulders, and it could not send an inspector to various localities throughout the country to inquire into the circumstances of a par-
  1780
  ticular road to be taken over. We must respectfully decline such a duty, which would probably have to be exercised in a vast number of instances in all parts of the country. We ask that Parliament should give to the Local Authorities, when a road is to be taken over, the power of saying what shall be done in the interests of the ratepayers. I think in asking the House to assent to that principle we are asking it to support that which is in accordance with the modern principles of legislation, namely, to confer more and more power, and more and more discretion on the freely-elected representatives of the ratepayers.
  DR. CLARK: I am sorry the hon. Member for North Camber well did not strike out the words "or any." I certainly think it is a very small thing to ask that the metalling and sewering shall be done. Under Clause 122 of the Public Health Act, the Authorities can only take a road over when that has been done. You are now trying to get rid of the law by which landlords are properly made to sewer a road before it is taken over to be maintained at the public expense. The proposal now before us is simply a mode of relieving a pertain number of landlords and builders from putting the streets they wish to be taken over into proper order. Some Local Authorities, whose proceedings are reported, will be very careful about what is done. But we know very well that there are Local Boards which are controlled by the jerry builders, contractors, and their friends. Generally, the ratepayers know nothing at all about it. In the suburbs of London, as the hon. Member for North Camberwell pointed out, it is very often the case. Why should you make this change in the law? Why should the public be compelled to metal, sewer, and light, and put the road into a condition that it may be maintained? I know the clause is permissive, but I think the same law ought to be applied all over. If the power were made compulsory, the Local Authority would see that all this work was done before taking the road over, but if it is made optional they will not do so. I do not see why you should repeal or modify this very valuable Clause of the Public Health Act, and which prevents badly-drained streets being

  1781
  made at all. As it is now, they will probably make badly-drained streets that will not bear the traffic when these streets will be taken over. This is simply an effort to slip into this Bill a permission repealing a very valuable Clause of the Public Health Act.
  CAPTAIN VERNEY (Bucks, N.): I very much regret the tone of the President of the Local Government Board towards this Amendment. If the hon. Member will strike out the words "if any," I will support him.
  MR. KELLY: That would only be a re-enactment of Clause 152 of the Public Health Act.
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: I understand it to he so. I do not wish to see any alteration of the law myself. What do we very often see? Some market garden laid out for building purposes, with curbstones to define the road, the middle of which is a perfect swamp. The houses are erected on either side, and the last thing done is the draining and metalling. What will be done in many instances? An attempt will be made to get the work of metalling and draining thrown upon the ratepayers. I think the speculative builders might at least be called upon to do the metalling and sewering, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accepting what is a reasonable Amendment, and one which can be productive of no harm.
  MR. STOREY: I want to point out that the Public Health Act, as it exists at present, has worked admirably. The Local Authorities cannot take on highways and streets unless they have been properly paved, channelled, and metalled, lint it is now proposed to give an option to the Local Authority to take over a road as to which all these things have not been done. Our rule in Sunderland has been the very opposite. We obtained a Private Act at a cost of £3,500 in order to secure control of the matter, and we require the centre of the road to be paved and drained before the buildings are erected. We require that the private owners of the land who make the profit shall put the street into a proper condition first of all. But under the clause now proposed, the Local Authority would have power to take over a street which had been simply levelled, and the ratepayers would have to pay the whole cost
  1782
  of sewering and paving out of the public funds. The hon. Member has used the word metalling. I know that is the common expression in London, where the macadam roads are most used, but in the North we find it more economical to pave our streets with some description or other of stone. And if this Amendment is to apply usefully throughout the country, I would suggest that he ought to use the words "including sewering, metalling and paving." I submit that the Amendment is a reasonable one, and where the Local Authority take over a road, the sewering, metalling, and paving should at least be made a sine qua non. The Local Authority might well be at liberty, so far as the flagging and lighting are concerned, but sewering, metalling, and paving involve considerations of health. I support the Amendment because I know that there are districts in England which are controlled by certain classes of persons who would use this change in the law to the public mischief.
  MR. KELLY: I am willing to accept the words "or paving."
  MR. SPEAKER: That can only be by leave of the House.
  (5.50.) The House divided:—Ayes, 54; Noes, 129. Division List (No. 224.)
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a third time,"—(Mr. Ritchie,)—put and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  POLICE BILL—(No. 392.)
  As amended, further considered.
  SIR G.CAMPBELL): I propose to begin by saying one word as to something which affects this and other Amendments. I will not detain the House longer than is necessary. I have always looked upon the threats of the First Lord of the Treasury in this way. These threats apply equally to the other side who must suffer.
  MR. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with the Amendment before the House. The hon. Gentleman will be good enough to address himself to the particular question.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I will be as brief as possible with regard to this particular Amendment. It seems to me reasonable that the Local Authority should have discretion to lower the

  1783
  pension by reason of demerits on the part of the officer in his service to the public as is the practice under the Civil Service Superannuation Act. But here you are going to give policemen a freehold such as is enjoyed by no other body of public servants except the clergy of the Established Church, and I hope they will not enjoy it long. I know the answer of the Government will be that there is no necessity for discretion. We insist that they shall not be deprived of these privileges. This is a reasonable Amendment which the Government may well accept. It touches the broad principle of the Bill that there shall be no discretion whatever in the Local Authorities in this matter, and it will make clear the position of the Government on that point. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 5, at the end of Clause 1, to insert the words—
  "Provided also, that the police authority may grant to any constable a pension of less amount than he would have been entitled to receive if his defaults or demerits in relation to the public service appear to them to justify such diminution."—(Sir Gerrge Campbell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,, E.): The hon. Member has anticipated the line of argument to be taken by the Government on his Amendment. It is totally inconsistent with the principle of the Bill. It is not the case that the Local Authority has no discretion. The hon. Member forgets that the pension is only to be given for so many years approved service. If there has been misconduct on the part of any constable it is open to the Police Authority to deduct the period during which the service has not been "approved." If a man after all deductions are made still has fifteen years approved service to his credit it would be monstrous to give the Police Authority further power of depriving him of his pension.
  MR. STOREY: I do not think that that is quite the point at the present moment. The Local Authorities have got complete freedom to grant pensions, larger or smaller, according to the conduct
  1784
  and character of the man. All we ask is that under this Bill they shall not have less power. We do not contest in this Amendment the principle that a man shall have a pension: we have contested that already, and so far have been defeated; but, given the right that the man shall have a pension, there remains this consideration: Shall the authority which employs and pays him have the right, at the end of 15 or 25 years, to consider whether he has been a useful and efficient servant, or whether he has been a sloucher and a loafer, and calculate his pension accordingly? If this power be not granted to the Local Authority we shall lose one of the most valuable powers we now possess for securing an efficient and active Police Force. Take the case of a municipality with a Police Force of 600 men. Every man at present knows that if he proves himself by extra activity and good sense and acuteness a really valuable public servant the fact will be considered in fixing his pension; on the other hand, if he be one of those easy-going persons, who slouches through his work, never effects a capture, and never distinguishes himself by discovering the commission of offences, he does not come off so well. But if this Bill is passed as it now stands both these men will be placed on the same footing. Is it fair? I want to give the municipality power to distinguish between the two. I would suggest that the Local Authority should have the power of awarding a greater or lesser pension, according to its judgment of the service the constable has done.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not speaking on the Amendment. He is referring to one which stands in his own name.
  MR. STOREY: The principle of the two Amendments is the same. I have no disposition to discuss the matter twice, and I thought I might as well deal with the point on this Amendment. My hon. Friend proposes that the Authority shall be able to grant to a constable a pension of less amount than under the Bill as it stands he will be entitled to receive. He puts no limit to the amount, whereas I would suggest there should be two pension scales; and it should be in the option of the Local Authority to place the man on the higher, or on the lower, scale, according to the services he has

  1785
  rendered. The Authorities practically possess that power at present, and it works advantageously. But the right hon. Gentleman proposes absolutely to take it away from them, and I want to know why he does so. Surely we, who pay the money, ought to have some voice as to the amount of the pension to be granted. I submit that the Amendment is a valuable one, and I hope that my hon. Friend will press it.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: If the meaning attached by the Home Secretary to the word "approved" is accurate, then the Amendment of my hon. Friend is not necessary. The point is a very important one. In the case of the Civil Service it is competent for the Treasury to reduce a man's pension if he has misconducted himself.
  MR. CHILDERS): I appeal to my hon. Friend not to press his Amendment. The words are not necessary, and I am sure that if Clause 4 requires strengthening in order to make this point clear the Home Secretary would assent to the alteration. I agree with my hon. Friend it is absolutely necessary the Local Authority should have this power.
  MR. STOREY: If we were quite sure as to the meaning of the term "approved service," and it covered what I want, I would not press the Amendment. But if my right hon. Friend examines Clause 4 he will hardly hold to the view he has expressed.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I cannot undertake to alter Clause 4 so as to meet the views of the hon. Member for Sunderland. That Clause enables the Local Authority to make deductions from the actual service of a man for misconduct or negligence. But it does not give the Local Authority the option of giving either a large or a small pension—a power which they have greatly abused in the past.
  CAPTAIN VERNEY (Bucks, N.): I think the words "approved service" do cover the point raised by the hon. Member for Sunderland. Approved service is diligent and faithful service. Surely it is only I fair the constable shall have notice from time to time if his service is not diligent, and will not be allowed to count for pension. It would be hardly right at the end of a man's service to
  1786
  tell him suddenly he has not earned a pension. I think the power given in the Bill will keep the chief constables up to the mark in maintaining the efficiency of the force.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. STOREY: I now beg to move in Clause 3, page 2, line 31, to add at the end, "Provided that the Police Authority may, in the pension scale contemplated by this Bill for ordinary pensions and within the limits of such scale, provide for a greater or lesser pension according to its judgment of the services and the conduct of each constable."
  MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how that differs from the preceding Amendment?
  MR. STOREY: Yes, Sir. In this particular, that it provides the Local Authority may make two pension scales, and within the limits of these scales grant a higher or a lower pension according to their judgment of the services rendered. I must take leave to repel with indignation the statement of the Home Secretary that the Municipalities have in the past in any way abused the power of pensioning the police. Can he name any one Municipality the police of which as a body have complained of such abuse, or that they have been unfairly treated owing to the power possessed by the Local Authority of differentiating between one man and another? I have had a good deal more experience than the right hon. Gentleman of the action of Local Authorities, and I venture to tell him that there has been no such complaint. We ask for a continuation of this right to differentiate between a man who has done valuable service and one who has done poor service.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! This is precisely the same question; there is no difference whatever. The hon. Member is arguing the same question again.
  MR. STOREY: Of course, Sir, if you—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! It is precisely the same question.
  MR. STOREY: Then I will simply move my Amendment, and take the sense of the House on it.
  MR. SPEAKER: I cannot put it.
  MR. ATHERLEY - JONES (Durham, N.W.): I beg to move the

  1787
  Amendment in my name. It is more a matter of form than of principle.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 36, to leave out the words "and send a copy to the Secretary of Stats."— (Mr. Atherley-Jones.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. MATTHEWS: The Local Authority is required to draw up a scale within a certain date, and if they fail to do so there is an alternative power in the Secretary of State to make a scale. How is the Secretary of State to know whether the Local Authority have framed a scale or not unless they send a copy of it to him?
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I hope the Home Secretary will be able to accept the other Amendment in my name.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 5, to leave out from the word "force" to the word "operation," inclusive, in line 7.—(Mr. Atherley-Jones.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. MATTHEWS: I think the hon. Member must see it is impossible to omit these words. It is provided that if the Police Authority are not satisfied with the scale they shall have power to revise it from time to time but clearly it would be unfair to make the revised scale applicable to men in the Force when the original scale was framed. It must only apply to men entering the Force after the revision.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I will not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to move in Clause 4, page 3, line 13, after the word "misconduct" to insert "inefficiency." The object of the Amendment is to enable a deduction from a constable's pension to be made on account of inefficiency as well as sickness or misconduct. At present deductions can only be made for some specific offence; we desire the same power for
  1788
  general inefficiency. Surely the Home Secretary will not object to that.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line' 13, after the word "misconduct," to insert the word "inefficiency,"—(Sir George Campbell.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'inefficiency' be there inserted."
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): The Government have no objection to the introduction of the word, except that they hold it to be the duty of the Police Authority to discharge a man for inefficiency. We ought to be able to rely on the efficiency of the police of the country.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: Would not that be covered: by the words in Clause 10,"any other reasonable cause"?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I think Clause 10 will require alteration.
  DR. CLARK: I think the clause goes too far already. It is very unfair that a man's pension should be lessened on account of sickness. A great many constables contract sickness in the discharge of their duty. I think the words "misconduct" and "neglect of duty" are quite sufficient. If you introduce the word "inefficiency," a sergeant or inspector, without finding any particular fault with his subordinate, could affect his pension prospects by simply saying he is a stupid and inefficient man. You make the constable pay the bulk of the fund from which the pension is taken, and of course the pension is taken into account when fixing his wages. If you introduce this word you will be depriving him by unfair means of money he has really earned.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MATTHEWS: The next Amendment is merely a question of drafting. At the instance of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Lawrence), certain words were inserted in Clause 14. The draftsman has, pointed out that they are in the wrong; place. The hon. Member will accept it from me that the alterations I propose carry out the understanding come to in the Committee.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 4, page 3, line 37, leave out "Great Britain" and

  1789
  Insert "any part of the United Kingdom."(Mr. Matthews.)
  Question proposed, "That 'Great Britain' stand part of the Question."
  MR. JOHNSTON): I have to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the introduction of this clause.
  MR. LAWRENCE: I am quite willing to accept the Amendment. There seems to be a little feeling abroad as to the effect of this Act upon Irish constables who come over here to serve. I have put an Amendment on the Paper providing that such constables should receive pensions from the Irish Government, which I regret the Government does not see its way to accept, but, as I have said, I am ready to agree to the right hon. Gentleman's proposal.
  MR. HUNTER): I do not know whether it is proposed to adopt a similar Amendment on the Scotch Bill. I should be obliged to oppose such an Amendment. The scale of pensions in Ireland is very much higher than the scale sanctioned by the Committee upstairs. At the same time, I am quite certain that the last thing a Scotchman would be willing to do would be to introduce as a policeman in Scotland any person who had been brought up under the malign influence of the Castle in Dublin.
  Question, put, and negatived.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Clause 6
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: This clause is erroneously described in the margin as one to give power to reduce pensions where the infirmity of a constable is partially due to misconduct. The provision is to enable pensions to be reduced where the infirmity is wholly due to misconduct. Such cases do arise. As the clause now stands, the Police Authorities will have no power to give a man less than four-fifths of his pension. I think the ratepayers will think it hard if they have to give a four-fifths pension to a man whose retirement is entirely due to his own misconduct. I propose to give the Police Authority power to act as they think fit. I think they should have power to prevent a man having any pension at all.
  1790
  They will then have power to say, "We know perfectly well you are injuring your constitution by your habits, and unless you improve we shall not give you a pension." There is a provision for a certificate by a medical man and therefore it cannot be hard on the man. It must be remembered that when a man is bringing on himself infirmity of body by his own misconduct he is injuring others besides himself. I do not think such misconduct ought to be treated lightly in the case of a policeman, who ought at all events to set a decently fair example in the locality in which he is placed. I therefore propose the Amendment of which I have given notice.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 29, after the word "reduce," to insert the words "or forfeit."— (Captain Verney.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. MATTHEWS: This is one of the matters we discussed very fully in the Committee, and I regret that it should have to be discussed again. No doubt it is a point which is open to consideration on both sides. This is necessarily a difficult matter to determine. Prima facie if the constable's habits had been such as to impair his constitution the Police Authorities ought to have found it out long before the pension was due and ought to have dismissed him. There may be a case in which where a constable who never drinks to excess, still goes on drinking from day to day. The former Bill on the subject only allowed the Police Authority to reduce his pension by one-tenth. I propose that it shall be reduced by one fifth. Now comes the purist in the shape of the hon. and gallant-Member opposite, who wants to give the Police Authority power to refuse a pension altogether. It is really a matter for the House to decide. If, however, you give power to the Police Authority to refuse a pension altogether, you should give an appeal, which at present is not. given.
  MR. CHILDERS: For my part I should very much regret to have a system of appeals, except as to questions of law. If you start the system of appeals you will have appeals from the whole of the police. I would prefer to

  1791
  see Clause 10 made very stringent. Men falling into these practices ought to be dismissed. If the power to dismiss is made perfectly clear I should invite my hon. Friend not to persist in his Amendment.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I intend to make it perfectly clear that the power to dismiss will be absolutely at the discretion of the Police Authority.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to move to leave out after "pension" to the end of the clause. I wish to take away the words which limit the reduction to one-fifth. In the Standing Committee the argument was all on one side. Member after Member appealed to the Home Secretary to accept this Amendment, and I did not think the right hon. Gentleman would divide upon it. The right hon. Gentleman, however, held out, without saying much in the way of argument, and, to the surprise of the Committee,he had a considerable majority when it came to the vote.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 29, to leave out all the words after the word "pension," to the end of the clause. —(Sir George Campbell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of Bill."
  SIR W. BARTTELOT): I certainly agree very much with what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I think it would be infinitely better to leave the discretion to those who have to deal with the cases. In my opinion, the Home Secretary would never regret having placed this power in the hands of the Police Authority. Under the clause, as it stands, all cases of irregularity, whether grave or trivial, will have to be dealt with alike.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I do not know whether it would shorten the discussion if I put in "one-half" instead of "one-fifth."
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I accept that.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I now beg to move to omit "one-fifth" and substitute "one-half."
  Amendment proposed, Clause 6, page 5, line 30, to omit "one-fifth" and insert "one-half."
  Question, "That 'one-fifth' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That 'one-half be there inserted."
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I cannot agree with the hon. Baronet behind me (Sir W. Bartfelot). A man should be dismissed for an offence of a sufficiently grave character, but I do not think his punishment should be held over until he has completed his 25 years' service. I earnestly hope the right hon. Gentleman will adhere to the Bill as it stands, and will not consent to its alteration.
  MR. CHILDERS: The clause applies to a very limited class of men only. If this were not so the remarks of the hon. Gentleman would no doubt have great force.
  DR. CLARK: After a man has served for, say, fifteen years, it would be very hard to refuse to pay him any pension. If he has served three-fifths of his time he ought to have three-fifths of his pension.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: My hon. Friend does not seem to appreciate that the clause will only apply to men who have misconducted themselves. I think the concession made by the Government is well grounded on public expediency.
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: I know a case of a Chief Constable, who, in the opinion of all who are acquainted with him, is bringing on ill-health by his vicious habits. I think if a constable who behaves in this way gets even half of his pension he is exceedingly well treated.
  MR. STOREY: I would point out that medical evidence has to be obtained of the fact that the constable has contributed to the infirmity by his own default or his vicious habits. Now, according to experience the larger amount that is deducted, the least likely is the doctor to give a certificate to that effect. I would suggest that three-fifths should be given at any rate.
  (6.53.) Question put.
  House cleared for a Division.
  (6.56.) Question again put, and agreed to.
  DR. CLARK: Would I be in order in moving three-fifths?
  MR. SPEAKER: That would not be in order, because we have passed the word "one."
  MR. PICKERSGILL): I propose to omit Clause 8 altogether. It provides that certain conduct on the part of a pensioner shall result in the forfeiture of his pension at the discretion of the Police Authority. I do not suppose the clause would have a very wide operation, because I cannot think that a man who had spent 25 years in an honourable occupation would be likely to commit any of the acts mentioned in the clause. The acts divide themselves into two classes. The first class consists of crimes, and the second of acts which are not crimes, but which one may call contra bonos mores. As to the first class the Court which convicts ought to punish once for all. To attach discretion for further punishment to the Police Authority would introduce a very disturbing element into the administration of justice in Criminal Courts. Further, it seems to me that by this clause we are reverting, capriciously and, therefore, the more mischievously, to the old practice of the criminal law under which a conviction for felony involved a forfeiture of the convicted man's property. The second class of offences are of an extremely vague character, and will give a power to the Police Authority which may be used in a tyrannical manner. One of the acts is knowingly associating with thieves, or reputed thieves; another is refusing to give information or assistance to the police; and another is being "guilty of any conduct which is, in the opinion of the police authority, disgraceful." I proposed this Amendment in the Standing Committee, and I quite admit I did not receive much support there. The only substantial argument, however—if I can call it substantial—advanced against me was that these forfeitures had been introduced into previous Bills dealing with the same subject. But by this Bill we are introducing a new principle which I think meets that argument altogether. In previous Bills it was provided that pensions should be given at the discretion of the Local Authority, and I quite admit that where the Local Authority has a discretion to grant pensions, it is not unreasonable to allow it a discretion to
  1794
  withdraw them. By this Bill we are giving an absolute right to a constable to have a pension, and it seems to me futile and nugatory, after providing that the constable shall have a right to a pension, to say the Local Authority shall be at liberty to withdraw it.
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 5, to leave out Clause 8.—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
  Question proposed,
  "That the words 'A pension or allowance under this Act is granted only upon condition that it becomes forfeited, and may be withdrawn by the Police Authority, in any of the following cases' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. E.ROBERTSON: My hon. Friend (Mr. Pickersgill) and some of his supporters the other day commented with some severity upon the length of time occupied on Saturday on a much more important question, involving the whole kernel of the Bill, by some of us who did not address the House as long as he has just done. I wish to support the Amendment. In Committee on the Scotch Bill the same point arose. Although I do not like either of these Police Bills, I wish to treat the police fairly, and I do not wish to impose on them conditions which in themselves appear to be degrading and insulting. If they are to have pensions, let them have them on terms which imply that they are decent and respectable citizens. The proposal as it stands amounts to nothing more or less than that the police pensioners are to be subject to police supervision.
  MR. MATTHEWS: This question was also thoroughly thrashed out in Committee. The clause has been in every Bill on the subject. Moreover, the conditions imposed have been in the regulations of the Police Force since the beginning, and it has never been alleged that they work any hardship to the men. Lastly, it would surely be a shock to the public conscience that a man committing an offence involving moral turpitude should be allowed to draw a large pension from the public funds.
  MR. CHILDERS: I am generally of the same opinion as the right hon. Gen-man, but I think the word "disgraceful" is too vague, and would suggest that it would be better to adopt the words of the Scotch Bill, giving power to the Police

  1795
  Authority to withdraw pension from any grantee who enters into or continues to carry on any business, occupation, or employment which, in the opinion of the police authority, is illegal.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS): I do not think that because a bad clause has been inserted in a number of other Bills we should therefore put a bad clause in this. Sub-section I) would, I believe, give power to anyone who had a grudge against a constable to make it doubtful whether the constable would ever obtain a pension or not. The word "disgraceful" is so vague that I think the draftsman himself would like to reconsider it. I think there is also a great deal of force in the argument put forward by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bethnal Green, that a man when he is punished for a crime should be punished out and out, and should not have a lot of, these forfeitures hanging over his head.
  SIR A. ROLLIT): I trust the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will, in justice to the Police Force, see his way to effect such a qualification in the clause as that indicated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: We must be careful what we do in this matter. If we look at Sub-section A, we shall see that we are going to a dangerous length. If an ex-policeman is committed to prison for three months with hard labour, or for 12 months with or without hard labour, he is to lose his pension. If, therefore, he should be tried for the offence of pocket-picking, and should only be sent to gaol for two months with hard labour, it will have no effect on his pension. Can it then be said that you must go lower down and forfeit the pension for "disgraceful conduct?" No doubt these words are wide and will bring a great many things into the net; but on the other hand, I think if it is advisable to omit the words in question from Sub-section D, these words in Sub-section A should be amended. There may be many offences for which an ex-police constable may be convicted, and where the sentence is not so heavy as three months hard labour or 12 months imprisonment of any kind.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I may say that the Government will be willing
  1796
  to adopt the wording of the Scotch Bill on this point, so that the two Bills may run together. By this arrangement it will be competent to withhold a pension by reason of a man carrying on a business occupation or employment which is illegal, or of disclosing information which he has become possessed of through his connection with a Police Force.
  DR. CLARK: What is an illegal occupation? Is there such a thing?
  MR. HUNTER: My opposition is directed against the whole of the Clause. There are two points of view from which all these matters may be examined, and the first is the financial point of view. The first question is what is the Clause going to be worth to the ratepayer or the pension fund? Well, the answer to that is that this is a provision which, from a pecuniary point of view, is of no value to the fund whatever, as the cases in which ex-policemen will be guilty of these serious offences will be extremely rare. From a policeman's point of view I quite understand why the policemen do not strenuously attack the Clause. If they did it might be said, "Oh, they want to be at liberty to commit these offences and still retain their pensions." Every policeman would see the Clause did not affect him; but I object to it on the score of principle. We give an absolute right to a pension, and, under the circumstances, I contend that the pension is as much the property of the policeman as if he had inherited the money from his great-grandfather. There are two modes by which we pay policemen under the Bill, one by a system of gratuities, and the other by a system of pensions. It cannot be contended that, having given a gratuity, you could revoke it; and what difference, I ask, does it make if, instead of paying a sum down, you reward him by an annual pension? None at all; and I therefore protest against the singling out of this one class of property for forfeiture. If the principle of requiring the forfeiture of property every time a disgraceful act is done is insisted upon in the case of every body, I could understand its application to a policeman. The English law used to recognise the principle in cases of felony, but its absurdity has been recognised and its total irrelevancy to punishment for crime has caused it to be abolished. This clause is one which

  1797
  shakes the security of pensions. It would operate with the greatest hardship and injustice in certain cases, such as where an innocent man is convicted, and cases of that kind are by no means unknown. I shall vote against the Clause.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I hope the House will not consent to this Clause being left out. It is a great advantage to the pensioners themselves that it is known that their pensions will be forfeited for certain things, as it enables them better to obtain the light employment of which they are capable.
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: I hope the Committee will adhere to this Clause, as the same rule obtains in the Army and Navy. It is to the advantage of the pensioners, as it enables them to get other employment. I am glad to hear what has been said in the course of the discussion as to the vagueness of disgraceful conduct, for the reason that during my election contest in North Bucks, my opponent expressed a hope that the Constituency would not disgrace itself by returning me.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I do not know how far the words "refusing to give assistance in case of any disturbance of the public peace" will extend. There may be many eases where the offence may not be of such a grave character that it ought to involve the forfeiture of a pension. The matter is to rest with the discretion of the Police, and we know they sometimes take a very wide view of what is a disturbance of the public peace. If it were for a Judge to decide I should be content. That is not the case, however, and I think these words should be altered. Many so-called disturbances take place at elections, and an ex-policeman might not wish to identify himself with either side.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: I beg to move to insert the word "indictable" before "offence." This word was inserted at first in the Bill, but was struck out in the belief that it was not necessary. I think it would be better and fairer if it were put in. A man may be indicted for picking pockets, and may not get as much as three months imprisonment with hard labour, but still may be unfit to receive a pension. If it is known that a
  1798
  man can easily lose his pension it will make him careful; besides which, it will make it easier for him to obtain employment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 8, after the word "any," to insert the word "indictable."—(Captain Verney.)—
  Question proposed, "That the word 'indictable' be there inserted."
  MR. MATTHEWS: I cannot accept the Amendment. The object of this Sub-section A is to try by general words to include those Acts which involve moral turpitude. If you put in these words you might include offences, which would not come within that category. In the case of pocket picking I do not think it likely that so light a punishment as two months hard labour would be inflicted for such an offence; for remember, the offender is an ex-policeman.
  SIR G.CAMPBELL: I accept the view of the Home Secretary that only offences which imply moral turpitude should be included, but if we accepted the Amendment we could graduate the punishment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  DR. CLARK: I move to leave out Sub-section C, which provides that a man shall lose his pension if he refuses to assist the police in the detection of crime, the apprehension of criminals, or for the suppression of any disturbance of the public peace. The words "any disturbance of the public peace" will include occurrences such as Salvation Army processions or matters of that kind, for which the hon. Member for Lanarkshire was sent to prison. This, certainly, ought not to depend upon the vote of one man: there ought at least to be a majority of two-thirds or three-fourths.
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 15, to leave out Sub-section C of Clause 8.—{Dr. Clark.)
  Question proposed, "That Sub-section C. of Clause 8 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. STOREY: I support my hon. Friend in this Amendment, but not quite for the reason he has given. I admit that as to Sub-sections A and B, iit is perfectly right that the pensions should be subject to withdrawal if the

  1799
  Local Authority thinks fit, but I submit that whatever a man does under Subsection C, is not sufficient reason for withdrawing the pension he has earned. If he refuses to give to the Police the information in his power for the detection of crime, and apprehension of criminals, and the suppression of any disturbance to the public peace, he is to lose his pension. Suppose he does that, why should he be subject to a special punishment over and above any other man who commits the same offence? If he can be punished for what must be in most cases a very venial offence, why should you subject him to the possibility of losing his pension? If a man has served 25 years honestly, and you have decreed that he shall have a pension, surely if ten years later he does something the Police Authority object to, you should not provide that he should lose his pension.
  MR. MATTHEWS: We must bear in mind that the pension is granted to a man who has been allowed to leave the Police Force on the ground that he either had a medical certificate that he was incapacitated for doing his duty, or had served for 25 years. Surely under such circumstances, it is only right that he should not forget that he is a pensioned policeman, and therefore is bound to give all the assistance he can in the detection of crime and so forth. If a man refuses to give such assistance, it is by no means unfair or unreasonable there should be some penalty.
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: I shall certainly support the proposal to omit this subsection. The law gives ample power to the Government to cause every citizen to assist the police: why should a policeman be subject to any additional penalty, the additional penalty of losing his pension. I think the right hon. Gentleman might see his way to withdraw this section.
  (7.37.) The House divided:—Ayes 132; Noes 39.—(Div. List, No. 225.)
  (7.45.) Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 19, to leave out Sub-section (d.) of Clause 8, in order to insert the words—
  "(d) If the grantee enters into or continues to carry on any business, occupation, or employment which is illegal, or in which he has made use of the fact of his former employment in the police in a manner which the
  1800
  Police Authority consider to be discreditable and improper."—(Mr. Secretary Matthews.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I rise for the purpose of supporting this Amendment. [Cries of "Agreed."] There is one remark I want to make, and I think I am within my right in making it. This Amendment entirely vindicates my suggestion on Saturday that the English and Scotch Bills should have been referred to the same Committee, In this debate constant references to the Scotch Bill are made under the most inconvenient circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) below me has been sitting with both Bills in his hands the whole evening, and has done the House the great service of continually referring to the provisions of the Scotch Bill. I think we have just ground for complaint against my right hon. Friend for having on Saturday prevented us by his influence taking a course whereby references to the Scotch Bills would have been made in a way convenient to the House.
  MR. CHILDERS: My hon. Friend has been good enough to compliment me on my influence. But he has also said, in opposition to my view, the two Bills should have been referred to the same Committee. My sole objection to that course was and is that if it had been adopted the chances are the two Bills would have been so delayed as not to pass this Session.
  DR. CLARK: I have no objection to the sub-section being omitted, but I think we ought to know what is meant by "carrying on any illegal occupation." By adopting this Amendment we should change the clause completely. Perhaps our meeting in the House of Commons might be regarded as an illegal occupation, and right hon. Gentlemen engaged in it, and who have large State pensions, might lose their pensions.
  MR. MATTHEWS: The words "illegal occupation" apply to some breach of the criminal law.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. STOREY: I would have no objection to the words down to the word

  1801
  "illegal," but I cannot see the justice of the words "in a manner the Police Authority may consider to be discreditable and improper." I am very distrustful of what the Police Authority may consider to be discreditable and improper. I do not allude to Police Authorities in boroughs, but I am not so sure about Police Authorities in counties, because the counties are not controlled as to the police by representative bodies. But my greatest objection would be to trusting to the Police Authority in the Metropolis, which is the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the time being. I would not trust the right hon. Gentleman, for instance, to carry out this clause. In country districts there are many employments and occupations which an ex-policeman might engage in, and which the magistrates might choose to consider to be discreditable and improper. For instance, if an ex-policeman happened to be implicated in some game case, I can understand that in many rural districts the law might be strained with great severity against the man by the authority, which is in no sense representative. I shall take a division. I agree to the words down to "illegal," but beg to move to omit the words from that word to the word "improper."
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out all the words after the word "illegal," to the end of the proposed Amendment.—(Mr. Storey).
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: I think it necessary to press the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey). I do not see that this generalisation is better than the generalisation we had in the old clause. There is nothing to show how the power will be used. You are giving pensions, and I take it you are doing so because the men have earned them. I do not think you ought to give the Police Authority power to exercise just as they like. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to leave out all words after "illegal."
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Reference has been made to the Scotch Committee from which this clause proceeds. Let me say
  1802
  the Scotch Committee, although unanimous in substituting these words, were by no means unanimous in accepting the words which are now objected to.
  (8.0) The House divided:—Ayes-100; Noes 50.—(Div. List, No. 226.)
  Words inserted.
  Other Amendments made. (8.15.)
  (8.40.) Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: The object of the next Amendment which stands in my name is to maintain the present right of a Police Authority to dismiss their own servants at their own-discretion. This was discussed in the Committee on the Scotch Police Bill and only defeated by the casting vote of the Chairman. I believe the Government will admit that the clause requires amendment, and I hope they will assent to my first motion, which is to strike out all the operative part of the clause.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 10, page 8, line 3, to leave out all the words after the word "shall."—(Sir G. Campbell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. MATTHEWS: I agree that Clause 10 requires amendment, and that the Police Authorities ought to have an absolute right to dismiss any constable, who, it must be clearly understood, will, in the future, have no vested interest in his position. In the event of a constable who has earned a pension being guilty of gross misconduct, he should be liable to be dismissed without a pension, but in that case he ought to have a right of appeal, and that appeal I propose to give him, to the Court of Quarter Sessions. I propose to insert in the clause the following words (and here I may say I do not object to the hon. Member's words, they are probably quite as good as my own):—
  "Nothing in this Act shall prevent any constable being dismissed or reduced to any lower rank or lower rate of pay or from having his claim to pension refused on account of misconduct or of negligence in the discharge of his duty, or on account of any of the grounds on which his pension, if granted, would be liable to be forfeited or withdrawn."

  1803
  If the House prefers the hon. Member's words, I am quite prepared to give way. I wish to preserve unimpaired the absolute power of the Police Authorities to dismiss or to reduce any constable without cause shown, but to secure for any dismissed constable who has earned a pension a right of appeal, and in that case good cause for his dismissal must be shown. I look at it in this view. The right of dismissal and of getting rid of a constable must remain absolute, but where a man has already earned his pension he is to have a right of appeal against dismissal.
  MR. HUNTER: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has taken this view. When the Committee discussed this point I felt that the language of the clause was somewhat incautious, and that it gave a vested interest in his office to every constable, I thought that that could not be the intention of the Government, and accordingly I moved an Amendment, similar to that now proposed by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy. It seems to me that so far as the mere wording is concerned, that should be left to the responsibility of the Government. I think my hon. Friend will do well to accept the Amendment of the Home Secretary.
  MR. CHILDERS: I, also, was glad to hear the announcement made by the Government, who did not in the Scotch Committee hold the same language. It seems only reasonable that when a constable has not earned a pension, the right: of the dismissed should not be subject to appeal, as it should be when the pension has been earned and is refused. The question becomes then one of law.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I wish to know whether the Government will assent to a similar Amendment being introduced into the Scotch Police Bill, the words of which are most ambiguous. I beg to tender my warm congratulations to the Home Secretary on the manner in which he has met this serious difficulty. It will complete our satisfaction if the right hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance that corresponding modifications will be made in the Scotch Bill.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: The words of the right hon. Gentleman thoroughly express what we wish to
  1804
  secure, and I am quite willing to leave the responsibility of framing the words to the Government.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I know that the clause gave considerable alarm to Local Authorities in the North, and the proposed alteration will allay that uneasiness.
  MR. STOREY: Will the alteration give the Local Authorities an absolute right of dismissal? And if so, will similar words be inserted in the Scotch Bill? Those are the points on which we wish to be satisfied.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I will accept the words suggested by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy if he will allow me to add the words I have proposed relative to the withdrawal of pensions.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I now propose to add the following words:—
  "Or shall prevent his claim to pension from being refused on account of misconduct or negligence in the discharge of his duties, or on account of any of the grounds on which his pension, if granted, would be liable to be forfeited and withdrawn."
  MR. HUNTER: Would the Lord Advocate apply this proposal to Scotland?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): I think this is a matter on which I should be prepared to insert such an Amendment in the Scotch Bill.
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
  MR. STOREY: I now beg to propose the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Atherley-Jones).
  "To leave out from 'apply,' in line 20, to 'court.' in line 23, and insert:—' In the case of a borough to the council thereof, and in the case of a county to the joint police committee of the justices and the county council of the county in which the constable was last serving, and the council or the joint committee, as the case may be, may make such order as to the council or the joint committee may seem just.'"
  I should myself have preferred to move the rejection of the clause, but I do not think I can go further under the circumstances than my hon. Friend proposes, and therefore, without pinning myself to its exact terms, I will move his Amendment as he has placed it on

  1805
  the Paper. The House knows that this is a clause giving an appeal in certain cases. It is not a case of contract. The Municipality does not agree to give the pension. It is the State which has stepped in, and having; offered a sum totally inadequate to pay the pensions it proposes to compel municipality by law to make up the difference. As the ratepayers are to be the paymasters they may fairly ask that in a question between themselves and their employes the matter should be left for settlement by themselves. We have heard much about decentralisation and the necessity for allowing in the public interest the claim made for a free Local Government, but we are now brought face to face with the fact that after the Local Authorities have decided that a thing shall not be, there shall, nevertheless, be the thing. My experience is not that the Local Authorities treat their servants harshly. If any complaint can be made against the Local Authorities it is not that they are illiberal. This must obviously be the case, because those who elect the Muni-ciple Authorities are, as a rule, small shopkeepers and workpeople who, having themselves felt at some time or other the pinch of poverty, are inclined to be generous where these allowances have to be made. But here comes the Home Secretary with a proposal that there shall be an appeal, and my hon. Friend's Amendment goes to the point as to what that Court of Appeal is to be. The Bill provides that it is to be the next Quarter Sessions having jurisdiction in the place where the constable last served. My hon. Friend's Amendment proposes to omit the words from "apply" to "Court," and to insert the words I have already read. I beg to urge on the Home Secretary, that in the case of boroughs which have no Quarter Sessions, this proposal raises one of the most burning questions that could be introduced. The want of these Courts of Quarter Sessions has caused a large amount of friction and personal antagonism as between the County and Borough Justices. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal reopens an old sore which we had hoped to have closed for ever, and my hon. Friend, in order to meet the objections to this proposal, suggests that the reference should be, not to the
  1806
  Court of Quarter Sessions, but in the case of a Borough to the Council, and in the case of a County to the Joint Police Committee of the Justices and the County Council. What can country gentlemen living miles away from these small Boroughs know of their needs and peculiarities? It may be said that the Watch Committee is practically the Town Council. It used to be the case that the Watch Committee was a mere Committee of the Town Council, but some years ago the Watch Committee was erected into a statuable body. That is, a body which would in the first place decide as to these pensions, and it is now proposed that there should be an appeal from the Watch Committee to the whole Council, who, certainly, have the best right to decide these matters. I think Town Councils may be trusted to settle such questions on principles of equity and fair play. Consequently, I regard the proposed appeal to the Town Council as a reasonable course that would obviate much friction. With regard to the counties, I would remind the House that in the Pilotage Bill which came before it we had an appeal given to the County Court Judge or the Stipendiary Magistrate. I should not object to such an appeal being given in Boroughs without Quarter Sessions jurisdiction, because the County Court Judge is constantly available in the Boroughs, and holds an absolutely independent position. We could, therefore, have confidence in him; and I may say the same of the Stipendiary Magistrate. At any rate, we strongly resent any measure subjecting the Town Councils to the review of Courts of Quarter Sessions, which otherwise possessed no authority in the Boroughs, and are without the respect and confidence accorded to the representative bodies.
  Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 20, to leave out from the word "apply" to the word "just," in line 23, in order to insert the words—
  "In the case of a borough to the council thereof, and in the case of a county to the joint police committee of the justices and the county council of the county in which the constable was last serving, and the council or the joint committee, as the case may be, may make such order as to the council or the joint committee may seem."—(Mr. Storey.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'to the next practicable Court of Quarter Sessions' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. MATTHEWS: I would point out, that by the clause we have already passed a legal right to certain pensions is given to the Police under certain conditions: the House having admitted the legal right, it is proposed that the Court of Quarter Sessions, as a body conversant with Police matters, should be the Court before the consideration of the appeals, in cases where the Police Authority chooses to deny the constables the right which Parliament has conferred upon them. Now, what is the proposal of the hon. Member for Sunderland? I must confess that I have some difficulty in understanding it. Sometimes, as was the case when we wore dealing with Clause 8, the hon. Member was for cutting down the discretion of the Police Authority, but now, when the question is whether the Police Authority have the right in refusing a pension, he actually proposes that the Court of Appeal should be the Police Authority itself.
  MR. STOREY: No.
  MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand the effect of his own proposal, and apparently has not read the Bill, The Watch Committee, which would have the grating or refusing of a pension, forms an important part of the Town Council itself, and that Town Council is to be the appeal against the Acts of its own Watch Committee; so that practically the hon. Gentleman gravely proposes that the very parsons who have approved the dismissal of a constable without a pension shall constitute the Court of Appeal to hear the complaint of the aggrieved constable. The proposal is similar to others with which the time of the House has been washed.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I am glad to see the explicit resistance which has been offered to this Amendment by the right hon. Gentleman. No one can have a stronger sense of the political antipathies of the hon. Member for Sunderland than I have, but I would point out that this is a matter of contract only. The constable contracts with the Police Authorities for pay, plus pension, and if the question of affirming or refusing a pension is to be left to the Police Authority, it makes one of the parties to this contract the Judge in his own case. The constables are entitled to a judi-
  1808
  cial, not to an ex parte, decision. The proper authorities being the Quarter Sessions, I hope this proposal will not be pressed, as it seems to me to be destitute of all principle. I think there ought to be every guarantee of impartiality in the case of these appeals; and to entrust them to the Town Councils would be a fallacious procedure, because these bodies would be practically affirming their own decisions, inasmuch as the members of the Watch Committee form a large proportion of the Town Councils. Such bodies are certainly to be trusted to do what they believe to be right, but no one should be judge in his own cause in the result of which he has an interest.
  MR. CHILDERS: We are here dealing with a question of protection of the legal rights of police officers, and the only point for consideration is to whom should these persons, if they think they have been illegally treated, make their appeal? I. am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, but I regard the act of the Town Watch Committee as the act of the Council. If on that ground alone, I could not accept my hon. Friend's proposal; but I have also in my mind the decision arrived at on this matter by the Committee on the Scotch Bill, and I think it would be well to follow more nearly the analogy there established than to accept the proposition of the Home Secretary. In Scotland the Sheriff, who is a legal officer of great experience, is the person who would decide these appeals. The best analogy we can find in England is the County Court Judge, who holds in some respects a similar position to that of the Scotch Sheriff. I think it. would be better to give the right of appeal, which is a valuable right to the Judge of the County Court, than to accept the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. I would, therefore, ask the Home Secretary, who knows that I have done my best to support this Bill, whether he will not allow the appeal in England to be made to the County Court Judge.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I am sorry to differ in toto from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh. I think the proposal of the Home Secretary is very much better than that of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh. I do not think it necessary that matters of this kind should be ex-

  1809
  clusively decided by a lawyer, because, while having regard to the law, we ought to have some consideration for equity and justice. It strikes me that the Court of Quarter Sessions would combine the judicial and equitable qualities, and that the nature of its experience spscially qualifies it for dealing with these questions. Therefore I hold it to be the best tribunal we can have.
  MR. J. C. STEVENSON: I must say that I heartily concur with the suggestion that the County Court Judge should be constituted the Court of Appeal. The case of the pilots is, I think, analogous to the present question. By an Act passed last Session, pilots who had paid into the pilotage funds, and who were entitled to a pension, were given an appeal to the County Court Judge in England, and to the Sheriff in Scotland, against any decision of the Pilotage Authority. I agree with what is now proposed, and will support the leaving out of these words in order to leave room for the insertion of the words "County Court Judge."
  DR. CLARK: The right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, would save time if he would agree to the insertion of the words "the County Court Judge." If you only allow an appeal to Quarter Sessions you will have the Magistrates first sitting as a Police Committee, and then sitting to hear the appeals of the police against the decisions of the Committee. I know the Police Committees are not composed wholly of magistrates, but partly so. Still, I think the police have a right to have their cases heard by an altogether unbiased authority. We are passing an Act to give certain rights and privileges, and when those rights and privileges are denied to a man, either by a Watch Committee in a borough, or by a Joint Committee in a county, he ought to have an appeal to a judge whose decision ought to be final. I am sorry that you have not in this country a judge equivalent to our Sheriff, but the nearest approach to it is the County Court Judge, and I think that the appeal ought to be to him. I think the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, should accept the Amendment, seeing that be himself has admitted that there is a good deal to be said for it.
  MR. J. P. B.ROBERTSON: I am in favour of the appeal in Scotland lying with the Sheriff, as I think that is an admirable form of appeal; but I am afraid that the reasons that constitute that a specially appropriate Court of Appeal do not apply to the County Court Judge. In Scotland the Sheriff is a trained lawyer, and in the general case a good lawyer; but, at the same time, it is not merely on account of his being a trained Judge in an Appeal Court that he is an appropriate arbitrator on questions arising under this clause. The Sheriff in Scotland is not only a lawyer who holds Courts of Appeal, but he also is an administrative officer in the county, and is brought into daily contact and special relations with the police. The Sheriff in the county in Scotland is responsible for the peace of the county. He has the use of the polios for the suppression of disorder and the preservation of the police. He is a member of every Police Committee in the county, and there are various other points of contact between him and the police. As an administrative officer he brings, in corroboration of his qualifications, the judiciary powers of deciding, which he has gained by experience. I would warn the House against accepting the County Court Judge in England as an analogy for the Sheriff in Scotland.
  COLONEL NOLAN): I thought the Home Secretary was going to agree to the Amendment, from his speech; but be has not done so. The Court of Quarter Sessions would be an admirable Court of Appeal in Ireland, as the County Court Judge there is the Chairman of that body. But it has been explained to me that the Court of Quarter Sessions in England consists of nobody but the Magistrates, and it seems to me that that would be a most dreadful tribunal to hear these appeals. There are very few police in English counties —England in this respect being exactly the reverse of Ireland—and there are a great many police in the towns; and if the Magistrates were to have the control of the police, it would be a most serious blow to the Municipalities. It seems to me that, if the proposal of the Government is adopted, the police will not know who are to be their masters— whether the Municipality or the Magis-

  1811
  trates; but if you adopt the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, and leave the whole question of pensions, when there is a dispute, to a judicial mind like that of a County Court Judge, you will give the police fixity of tenure and judicial security for payment of what is due to them. I would point out that, in a letter to the Times, a Lord Lieutenant of a county not long ago insinuated that those Magistrates 'who speak against the Government in the House of Commons ought to resign. Well, it would appear from that that Lord Lieutenants might insist on Magistrates resigning in certain cases if they did not give pensions to the police.
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: I must condemn the tone of the speech of the Home Secretary, who apparently has no practical knowledge of this subject, or how Quarter Sessions in country districts are conducted. If the appeal is to the County Court Judge, the policeman will say he has a legal claim, and the County Court Judge will simply decide the point of law brought before him. There can be no doubt there will be considerable jealousy on the part of the Borough Councils if the County Magistrates are allowed to override them in regard to police pensions. That argument which was used by an hon. Member below the gangway is a powerful one, and is a valuable contribution to the Debate. The argument of the hon. Member for Caithness, that the Joint Committees are partly composed of County Magistrates, was also a strong one against the proposal of the Government. As Chairman of the Quarter Sessions in Anglesea, and also member of the Joint Committee, I should have to decide in the one capacity upon my action in the other. In the rural districts the Chairman of Quarter Sessions, as a rule, sits with, perhaps, not more than one other Magistrate. I think the appeal should lie with the County Court Judge, as he is the one man in the county who is accustomed to decide claims for pay. Surely he would be fitted to decide the questions of law arising under these clauses.
  MR. MACLURE): I shall most emphatically support the Court of Quarter Sessions. If the appeal is to the Court of Quarter Sessions the County Com-
  1812
  mittee can be excluded, and then there will be a Court in which the constables will have confidence.
  MR. LEAKE): I think that, so far as the Boroughs are concerned, the Govern-will be wise in leaving the arbitrament to the County Court Judge.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Under the clause as it stands, no matter within the discretion of the Police Authority will have to be determined by the Court of Appeal. The only question will be one of law, and it appears to me that the proper tribunal, therefore, will be the County Court Judge, and not the Quarter Sessions Court. The case for decision will really be in the nature of a civil action.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The appeal is to be to the County Justices.
  MR. MATTHEWS: No; to the Recorder of the Borough.
  MR. STOREY: There are no Recorders.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I think the Home Secretary does not know his Bill. There is no Recorder mentioned in the Bill. So that really there will be an appeal from the Borough to the County Magistrates. Undoubtedly there is strong jealousy on the part of the Boroughs against the County Magistrates, and I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to insert some words giving an appeal from the Borough Police to the Recorder of the Borough or the County Court Judge.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOE THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,): The hon. Gentleman has not observed that the Court of Quarter Sessions, having jurisdiction in the Borough, is already in the Bill, and that Recorders preside in all large Boroughs over the Courts of Quarter Sessions. The right hon. Gentleman opposite committed himself to the opinion that they were really civil matters and questions of law. They are not civil matters, but criminal matters, and! matters of fact. These are very proper to be decided in the Court of Quarter Sessions, and are utterly remote from those tried by the County Court Judges.
  (9.53.) The House divided:— Ayes 107; Noes CO.—(Div. List, No. 227.)
  DR. CLARK: Perhaps the Home Secretary might agree to make the matter optional. I beg to move an Amendment to that effect. In the case of a County, one-half the Police Committee consists of Magistrates, and therefore in appealing to the Justices, the constable would have, we will say, to appeal from Philip drunk to Philip sober. I think he ought to have the right to appeal to someone who has not given a decision already.
  Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 20, after the word "sessions," to insert the words "or to the County Court Judge."—(Dr. Clark.)
  Question proposed, "That those words foe there inserted."
  MR. MATTHEWS: I take it for granted that Magistrates who are on the Joint Committee will be absolutely disqualified from sitting in the Court of Quarter Sessions on the hearing of an appeal against their decision. This is the rule in all appeals from Petty Sessions to Quarter Sessions. No Justice whose decision is appealed against does sit in Quarter Sessions on the hearing of the appeal, and if one did so, the decision of the Quarter Sessions would be invalid. The questions which will arise on appeal are all criminal questions or questions of fact. County Court Judges know no more, and, indeed, not as much, about what a police constable ought to do as members of the Quarter Sessions Court. The hon. and gallant Member opposite (Captain Verney) says his knowledge of Quarter Sessions dates back 30 years. I may say I practised in Quarter Sessions when the hon. and gallant Gentleman was still rolling on the briny ocean. Quarter Sessions deal with Licensing Appeals, and with appeals on other matters, and they are quite competent to act in this way.
  (10.10.) Question put, and negatived.
  MR. MATTHEWS: The next Amendment was suggested by my learned Friend the Member for the Leek Division of Staffordshire (Mr. H. T. Davenport). It is meant to meet the case of a Borough like Lichfield, which has a Court of Quarter Sessions, a Recorder, and a Police Force of its own. We want
  1814
  to provide that a constable of a County shall appeal to the Quarter Sessions of the County, and a constable of a Borough having a Quarter Sessions, to such Quarter Sessions.
  Amendment proposed in Clause 11, page 8,line 20, leave out from "having," to "serving," in line 21, inclusive, and insert—
  "For the county within which the constable last served; or if the constable last served in the police force of a borough having a separate police force and a separate court of quarter sessions, then to the next practicable court of quarter sessions for that borough."— (Mr. Matthews).
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. STOREY: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what he proposes in the case of a large number of Boroughs that have a Borough Bench but no Court of Quarter Sessions.
  MR. MATTHEWS: They must go to the County.
  MR. STOREY: I will not trespass on the House now because I have given notice that immediately these words are struck out I shall move a consequential Amendment to cover the case of Boroughs with a Bench of Magistrates.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. STOREY: The clause as it now stands provides that in a County the appeal shall be to a Court of Quarter Sessions, and that in a Borough, with a separate Police Force and aseparate Court of Quarter Sessions, the appeal shall be to the Quarter Sessions of that Borough. I do not contest the fairness of that provision, but I put to the Government the case, not of one, but of many towns, large and small A very considerable number of Boroughs have Borough Benches of their own, and Police Forces of their own, and they do not want to have to appeal to the Court of Quarter Sessions. The right hon. gentleman must be aware that there is a long standing feud between the Magistrates of the Boroughs and the Magistrates of the Counties. [Cries of " No, no."] The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Howard Vincent) says "No," but he cannot know much about it. ["Why not?"] Because he has

  1815
  never had much practical acquaintance with Boroughs. [Mr. Howard Vincent: "I am a Borough Member."] I know he has been a Borough Member for a limited number of years, but what does he know about the management of Boroughs? When I said a feud, I did not mean a personal feud. The County Magistrates used to claim jurisdiction in the Borough, and they used to sit with the Borough Magistrates and attempt to adjudicate with them. In the end, the Borough Magistrates appealed to the Superior Courts in order to be delivered from that state of things, and a working arrangement was made under which the Borough Magistrates sat for five days in the week, and the County Magistrates came in on the Saturday and took County cases. In the Boroughs we are strongly of opinion that, as we manage our own affairs municipally, we ought to do so judicially. What does the right hon. Gentleman propose in the Bill which he says he understands, and which he says I do not? He proposes that if in such large towns as South Shields, Stockton, Sunderland, and Gateshead, we have a dispute with a policeman as to his pension, we shall pass over the Borough Bench and go to the County Magistrates at Durham. The Municipalities object to such an arrangement, and therefore I beg to propose to add to the clause the words,"or if in a Borough with a Borough Bench but not a Court of Quarter Sessions for the Borough, then to the Borough Bench."
  Amendment proposed, at the end of the last Amendment, to insert the words—
  "Or if in a borough with a borough bench but not a court of quarter sessions for the borough, then to the borough bench."—(Mr. Storey.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am sorry that I cannot agree to any of the hon. Member's Amendments. I do not think that the hon. Member has thought out what he has proposed. This is a question of appeal, not a matter of legal right; and such appeal must go to a Court. A Borough Bench is not a Court; they have no jurisdiction, either by common law or statute; they have no place of meeting for the transaction
  1816
  of business. They have no corporate or collective existence at all; they are a mere congeries of atoms. Therefore, the proposal of the hon. Member is one which is simply impossible in law and impracticable in fact.
  SIR H. DAVEY: I really do not feel much impressed by the legal argument of the right hon. Gentleman. It is quite true that a Bench of Borough Magistrates may not have the jurisdiction of a Court of Quarter Sessions, but we are now debating a new statutory jurisdiction, and I cannot see why, when we are creating a new statutory jurisdiction de novo, we should not give it to the Bench of Borough Magistrates meeting in their usual place. This is not old business which has hitherto been transacted by the Court of Quarter Sessions; it is new business altogether; it is more in the nature of arbitration than anything else it is the appeal of a policeman against the depreciation of his pension. It is quite true that words may be requisite to explain and guard the Amendment, but as to the legal impossibility, I must say that I am not impressed by the arguments of the Home Secretary.
  MR. ADDISON: I really am quite astonished at the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Stockton (Sir H. Davey). All who are acquainted with Quarter Sessions know that they are a Court of Record, cognizant of such matters as those into which we are now inquiring, whereas the Borough Magistrates are not a Court at all in the legal sense of the word. The hon. Member for Sunderland speaks of a contest between Borough and Country Magistrates. I am well acquainted with Lancashire, and to say that there is any contest between the Borough Magistrates and the County Magistrates in that County, where there-are many Borough Magistrates, is a mere-fiction.
  MR. BRUNNER: I am amazed to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman say that there is no jealousy between the Borough and the County Magistrates in Lancashire. At every Quarter Sessions complaints, are heard on the part of the Borough Magistrates of Manchester and Liverpool of their decisions being overridden

  1817
  by the County Magistrates. I trust the Secretary of State will inform himself on this point. I can assure him that if ho does not listen with favour and consideration to the appeal on behalf of the Borough Magistrates, he will give a great deal of pain to a great many worthy supporters of the party of which he is a distinguished ornament. We have heard from the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Addison) that Borough Magistrates are not a Court. Well, my hon. Friend, the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), who has been accused of ignorance, is well aware of that; it is a fact we have known for a long time; a fact which we dislike and which troubles us. We consider that Borough Magistrates, being such as we know them to be, are quite as capable of forming an opinion as Magistrates appointed by Lords Lieutenant of Counties. I trust yet that the Home Secretary will see fit to add these words which, by the hon. and learned Member for Stockton (Sir Horace Davey), have been declared to be necessary. I do not pretend to give a legal opinion, but it does not seem to me to be necessary that Borough Magistrates should be constituted a Court with full legal powers in order to act as a Court of Arbitration between policemen and those who govern them. However much we may be impressed by what the Home Secretary tells us; however much he tells us of the difficulty of making Borough Magistrates into a Court, it does not seem to me to be necessary, and I trust hon. Members opposite who represent borough constituencies, and there are a good many of them, I am sorry to say, will support our proposal.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: Hitherto I have supported the Government as to the appeal tribunal, but I hope some concession will be made to the strong feeling that undoubtedly exists in Boroughs. I wish to avoid exaggerating that feeling, but undoubtedly there does exist some jealousy between Boroughs and Counties in respect to the distinctions in jurisdiction between the Magistrates in either, for example, with reference to hearing licensing appeals; a feeling, I think, it would be well to get rid of. I confess there is a difficulty as to the Amendment, which is crudely worded, but it is of a
  1818
  technical and legal character. The Borough Magistrates exercise jurisdiction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, and a slight addition to their power would enable them to act in cases such as is here proposed. From the point of view of the policeman, it should be observed that he is dependent on the pension for his subsistence, and it is important to him to have a speedily and easily accessible tribunal to which he can go without expense. The Borough Magistrates present such a tribunal in Boroughs, and I cannot doubt that they would deal out substantial justice. I was much impressed by what was said by the hon. Member for the City of Edinburgh, but even then I supported the Government, believing that on the whole they had proposed the best tribunal; but I do hope that the Government will see their way to making this concession.
  MR. SINCLAIR): Speaking as a Magistrate of Liverpool, I hope the Government will make this concession. In Liverpool, as we know, there is an appeal to the Recorder, but there are two adjacent Boroughs where there is no Recorder, and where the appeal will be to Quarter Sessions: I mean Bootle, and, on the other side of the Mersey, Birkenhead. In these two Boroughs, practically running into Liverpool, the distinction will create some feeling it is desirable to avoid. Without going so far as to say there is ill-feeling between County and Borough Magistrates in Lancashire, I may say the distinction is felt; and whatever feeling there is should be removed, and at hast should not be added to by increasing the points of distinction in jurisdiction. The distinctions are very prominently brought out when of members of the same family some are Magistrates in Boroughs and others in Counties.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir E. CLARKE,): I think my hon. Friend who spoke from this side, and others, do not really see what the question is. If there is to be an appeal at all, it must be to a court or definite body with power to deal with the matter in question. It is perfectly intelligible that an appeal should be to the Court of Quarter Sessions, but in a borough which has no Court of Quarter Sessions the Borough Justices do not form any court

  1819
  at all, and have no means of forming a court. There is no court to which an appeal could be taken, and it would take an Act of Parliament to form Borough Magistrates into a specific court in order to deal with this matter. In such cases I submit it is only reasonable that the appeal should be to the Quarter Sessions of the County.
  MR. GOURLEY: But under an Act of Parliament Borough Magistrates have been constituted a court for the purpose of dealing with wrecks in certain cases. Surely there would be little difficulty in constituting a certain number of Magistrates into a Court to deal with these pension cases?
  DR. CLARK: Under the Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act they are constituted a court with assessors under the Board of Trade.
  SIR E. CLARKE: Under special Act.
  DR. CLARK: Yes; but the view presented to us is that they are a heterogeneous body, having no jurisdiction as a court. Why, they try and send persons to prison; they have various functions; they have clerk and officers; they have, as a matter of fact, been constituted a court under the Board of Trade. Your description is a caricature of their position. The House of Commons is, in theory, the secondary chamber to the Lords, but time has increased the power of the one and diminished the power of the other; and so, also, with these two classes of Magistrates. It is merely a technical, not a real difficulty that is raised. Borough Magistrates are, in fact, a fully competent court to deal with such cases as an Act of Parliament may entrust them with.
  (10.41.) The House divided:—Ayes 74; Noes 116.—(Div. List, No. 228.)
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I rise to move the omission of Clause 13. It is a matter of great importance to pensioners, and it will be observed that my hon. Friend the Member for South Islington has notice of an Amendment to a like effect. It is a subject I raised in the Standing Committee, but it is of such importance that I venture to invite thereon the judgment of the House. Clause 13 provides that a constable's pension may be suspended if he takes employment in another police force, and that if a con-
  1820
  stable takes employment paid for by Government, or out of a county or borough rate, he shall not receive more pension than shall, together with the pay of his employment, amount to one-and-a-half times his police full pay. Clause 8 has dealt with offences for which a pensioner shall forfeit his pension, and this clause prevents him from following certain occupations. This, I think, is most unfair and undesirable. If a man has served 25 years in the Force he has fairly earned his pension, and if any County Council or Town Council or any Local Authority chooses to employ him in any light occupation, so much the better for him; but I see no ground on that account why he should forfeit his pension. We give by this Bill, as the Home Secretary has said, a policeman an absolute legal right to a pension; but I may point out that the second part of the section—there is not perhaps so strong an objection to the first part—the second part would absolutely prevent a pensioner from even taking charge of an empty house belonging to the County Council, because for that duty he would be paid out of a borough or county rate or fund. I hope I may have such support as may induce the Government to consent to the omission of the clause. It is of vital importance to pensioners. It puts a restraint upon industry, and a premium upon idleness. I may appeal to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, who takes such an active interest in this Bill. He, I am quite sure, would not wish that a disqualification of the kind should attach to acceptance of a pension. I take his own case. He is in receipt of a pension for services rendered—
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: No.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: No-well, then, it is an annuity. I think the hon. Gentleman called it an annuity in the Grand Committee. But he, I am sure, would admit the injustice of attaching to the receipt of this superannuation allowance a disqualification against the employment of his abilities in other directions.
  Amendment proposed, in pages 8 and 9, to leave out Clause 13.—(Mr. Howard Vincent.')
  Question proposed, "That Clause 13 stand part of the Bill."
  SIR G. CAMPBELL; As the hon. Member has appealed to me, I say at once that not only can I not support him, but I can hardly think he is serious in his proposal. He proposes that a man having served in a Police Force and being' discharged with a pension, shall be allowed to go to the next town or county and there take service in another Local Force and continue to draw both pay and pension. That seems to me a preposterous proposal, and I do not think that the hon. Member can seriously mean to make it. The hon. Member cites, by way of illustration, the taking care of an empty house for a County Council, but this is not a case in point, because it will be noticed that the proviso is that pay and pension combined shall not be more than one and a-half times his full police pay. This prohibition against employment in other branches of the Civil Service while drawing a Civil pension is a principle generally applied. If I may make a personal reference, I may tell the hon. Member that I do not draw a pension, and that I served so long that I consider that I entirely paid for my annuity, and that I receive no contribution from the Government at all. That being so, I consider myself free to accept any employment that may be offered.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: The proposal appears to me to be not only a serious one, but one to be seriously supported. There is probably no stronger feeling among the police in reference to this Bill than that in favour of the omission of the clause before the House. The Bill proposes that the men shall have an absolute right to the pension on certain conditions, and the contract with them is for, say, plus, a pension at the end of a certain period of approved service. If the men fulfil those conditions, I cannot see why any limitation should be put upon their future employment. The case of the Army is analagous. In the Army the soldiers have pensions, and when they are discharged every one most earnestly and properly desires that they should find good
  1822
  employment. Both the present and the late Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police draw pensions from the Army, and do or did most meritorious service in the police at the same time. To proscribe a policeman able to work, and offered the opportunity for employment is justified by no reason whatever. His fitness to engage in his new employment is entirely a question for those who engage him; and having performed his part of the contract of service in the force he is entitled to the pension and the right to the profitable employment of his remaining time. In the interest of the force, and in the interest of the public, because it will be an additional encouragement to efficient service, I hope my hon. Friend will press the Amendment, with the result that it will ultimately be accepted.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sheffield in Committee, and I think it is founded on common sense. I do not think a man should get a pension so long as he is fit for his work; and I think two or three millions would be saved in Army, Navy, and Civil Service pensions if this principle were acted upon. If a man is fit for the work on which he is engaged, why drive or coax him out of the service with a pension? This was the point I maintained in the discussion on the Army Pension Bill, and I spoke for an hour upon it; but when once you have got rid of a man with a pension, let him be free to employ his time and industry as best he can. I therefore support the Amendment.
  MR. MATTHEWS: The logic of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is difficult to follow. He is prepared to grant a pension to a man when he is disabled for further work, but this clause deals with the case of a man who shows that he is not disabled, having undertaken similar work. Ho leaves the police because he is no longer able to do the work.
  COLONEL NOLAN: No, that is not the Bill.
  MR. MATTHEWS: He either is discharged upon a medical certificate, or he

  1823
  is discharged at the end of 25 years' service. The hypothesis upon which a policeman receives a pension is either that he is medically unfit, or that, having served 25 years, his nerves are shattered and his strength gone through prolonged conflict with the criminal classes. The theory is that the man's exertions in the Public Service have worn him out. It is upon that theory, and that theory alone, that he is pensioned. But if the man takes service in another Force it proves that theory to be wrong, and, therefore, it is right the pension should be forfeited. The case of deferred pay is altogether different; there it is a matter of contract, and there is an end of it. But that is not the principle here, which is compensation to a man for exhaustion of mental or bodily faculties worn out in the Public Service.
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: One argument has not been advanced, and that is the great advantage of the public in being able to employ policemen. I shall support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sheffield on that ground. I think it would be a great misfortune and drawback not to be allowed to employ policemen, simply because they are in receipt of pensions, and, therefore, I shall indulge in the extremely novel sensation of supporting an Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite.
  MR. BURDETT COUTTS: I also shall support the Amendment. I do not see why, after a man has earned his pension by serving the required period, any restraint should be placed on his making the best of the energies he may retain. I think the police feel very strongly on the point, and I certainly intend to support the Amendment.
  MR. BARTLEY): I think we are going too far in this Bill. We are giving the police the enormous advantage of obtaining a pension at the age of 46 years. It certainly cannot be in the interest of the ratepayers to allow a man of 46 years to receive a pension, and then go on in the Service with full pay as well. No other of policemen. We are making most
  1824
  class of public servant—neither soldier nor sailor—is allowed such a privilege, and I do not think we ought to hold out such bribes, in order to catch the votes liberal arrangements in the interest of the police, but I do not think we shall be justified in going to this extreme.
  MR. ISAACSON: I shall support the Amendment. Representing, as I do, an East End constituency I feel that I cannot do otherwise. I hold that, after a policeman has earned his pension by, say, a service of 25 years, he has a right to be perfectly free to do what he likes.
  DR. CLARK: Policemen are compelled to pay a portion of their wages to the Pension Fund, and if they are so unfortunate as to fall sick, the sick leave is deducted for the period of service. As a matter of fact, the granting- of these pensions will prevent agitation for higher wages, and the men will not get that increase of pay which they would have obtained if the pensions were not to bo granted. A man of 46 years, even after 25 years' service, may be able to get light employment in various capacities, and I think it would be acting most unfairly towards him to prevent him doing so. I think he has an absolute right to his pension. He has paid for it, and if you prevent him working, simply because he receives a pension, I think you will deprive him of a great privilege. I know that in Scotland a number of ex-policemen find light employment. Whatever may be the case in London, we know that in the provinces very few policemen are worn out at the age of 46 years, and that most of them are quite fit for another 10 years' service. They are not likely to retire on a pension if they are able to continue in the Force at full pay.
  MR. AMBROSE: Two points have been lost sight of by the hon. Members who have supported this Amendment. In the first place it is clear that a police officer who gets a pension is not prevented from taking any other work, but he may

  1825
  undertake employment, the remuneration for which does not exceed one and a half times the amount of his former salary. If he should be able to get a salary in excess of that, the argument comes in that he is a man who ought not to be pensioned at all. It is said that this pension is an absolute right; but, on the other hand, I venture to suggest that tin's Bill was promoted not in the interests of policemen alone, but in the public interest. If a man is absolutely disabled by illness from work after a certain age, it is presumed he is incapacitated from taking other employment, and certainly nothing should be done to induce him to hold office after the time fixed by law as that at which he ought to retire. As a matter of fact, men are sometimes retained in office after they are unfit to serve. But who suffers from that? The public, of course: and our object ought to be to get rid of a man immediately he is past work. If you do not give him an opportunity of taking public employment in this way you will have the Service retaining men beyond the period at which they are fit to work. This is really a question for the ratepayers.
  MR. HUNTER: I hope the Government will remain firm. This is a clause similar to one contained in the Scotch Bill, and upon that clause the Scotch Committee was perfectly unanimous. It was felt that men in receipt of a pension at an early age ought not to be allowed to go into the labour market and compete with those who have not the advantage of receiving a pension.
  MR. KELLY: I wish to ask a question as to what is the present practice. Is a man deprived of a part of his pension if he chooses to work after he has earned it? Surely it is not so. Let the House just consider what it would be to deprive policemen of the power of earning further money. Could a policeman live on a pension of £31) a year. I venture to say he could do nothing of the kind. The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen talked about policemen who had been pensioned going into the labour market, and so, with their pensions, being able, upon unfair terms, to compete with other
  1826
  labour. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, on the other hand, talked about policemen being utterly worn out before they obtained their pensions. I think both these views are more or less erroneous. Now, I can understand it being contended that the pensions have nothing of the character of deferred pay (though that seems to be a total mistake, as they are to have 2½ per cent, taken from their pay), that no pensions at all ought to be given, or that this should in no case be done until a man is unfit for service, but if you are going to give pensions, then I hold that they should be given unconditionally, and that they should not be used as a means of depriving the public of the service of the best and most trustworthy men that can be obtained for that large number of posts for which pensioned policemen would have especial qualifications.
  MR. STOREY: I almost felt inclined to vote for this Amendment a little while ago, and I am not sure that I shall not do so now. I submit that if a pension is a matter of right, its enjoyment ought not to be restricted by any conditions such as these. There are many posts which pensioned policemen could well fill to the public advantage. I hold that the position of the Home Secretary is utterly illogical, and I shall satisfy my ancient grudge against him by voting for the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield.
  (11.17.) The House divided:—Ayes 116; Noes 51.—(Div. List, No. 229.)
  MR. STOREY: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name—
  MR. LAFONE: I wish to ask, as a point of order, Mr. Speaker, whether it is respectful to the House that an hon. Member should put down so many Amendments on the Paper and not take the trouble to-be in his place, leaving the Member for Sunderland to take them up, and entail a debate for upwards of an hour with the result that we are now only in the position we occupied when the Debate commenced.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is in order.
  MR. STOREY: This clause contains provisions as to service in more than one capacity. The first sub-section of the clause provides that when a person has served as a Civil Servant within the meaning of the Superannuation Act, 1887, and afterwards joins the police, he shall be entitled to reckon his entire period of service in both capacities for the purposes of a pension. I want to know from the Government why they have introduced this provision? We have just decided that if a policeman be pensioned, and then goes into the Civil Service, he must suffer some deprivation of pension should his salary exceed a given amount. Why should Civil Servants entering the police be entitled to reckon their service prior to joining the Force, for the purpose of pension? I should have thought it was quite sufficient to reckon the service in the Police Force without taking into account what a man has been before becoming a police-man. If we are going to give a man a pension for becoming a policeman we ought not to take into account his services in some other capacity. I submit that there is no earthly reason why the provision should be retained in the Bill, and I, therefore, beg to move that Subsection 1 of Clause 14 be omitted, and that the time for which a policeman may claim a pension shall be only that period which he has served as a police officer in some Force in the United Kingdom.
  Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 10, to leave out Sub-section (i.) of Clause 14.—(Mr. Storey.)
  Question proposed, "That Sub-section (i.) of Clause 14 stand part of the Bill.'
  MR. MATTHEWS: The inconvenience of these discussions is illustrated on this point by a reference to what took place in Committee. There the matter was discussed and a compromise arrived at. The hon. Member did not honour us with his assistance in Committee, and now he raises an abstract objection. We have arrived at an equation between the years of Civil Service and Public Service. There are cases in which members of the Civil Service have done good service in the police, and have taken the new service only on the condition that their
  1828
  former years of service should not be wiped out. If you do not establish a ratio of service in the two Services yon establish the strongest motive why a man should not accept service in the Police Force. The case has more frequently arisen in the Metropolis, where Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners, after being admirable Civil Servants, have become admirable police officers. In both capacities they have rendered great service, and it would be most undesirable to discourage distinguished Civil Servants who have acquired valuable experience from taking service in the police; and they would be discouraged if they were not allowed to reckon their service as Civil Servants in the computation for pensions. Taking the difference in the age of retirement from the Civil Service and the present proposal in this Bill, which, though not defining an age. practically means retirement at from 46 to 50, we have arrived at the ratio as between service in either, and consider that four years in the Civil Service equals three years in the police. But all this was fully discussed in Committee, and I regret that it should be raised again.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: The right hon. Gentleman has repeatedly complained of raising in the House questions that have been discussed in Committee, but I do not think he has any right to make any such complaint As I am giving him general support in furthering the progress of the Bill, I I hope I may not be suspected of any ulterior motive when I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he was fairly warned from these Benches, and also from the Front Opposition Bench, that very little time would be saved by taking the course of referring the Bill to s Grand Committee. From the character of the Bill we anticipated that discussions would be re-opened in the House as they have been from either side. After the warning the Government had, I hope we may not again have these complaints.
  (11.37.) The House divided:—Ayes 158, Noes 30.—(Div. List, No. 230.)
  Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 12, to leave out the words "in England or Wales."—(Mr. Secretary Matthews.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'in England or Wales' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. STOREY: I admit this is a formal Amendment, but I must say if a number of us had seen the Amendment in time, which the right hon. Gentleman suddenly proposed to Clause 4,which was not discussed in Committee, but accepted in Committee, we should have taken the opportunity to resist it at that time. As this is a consequential Amendment, and raises the same point, I may tell the right hon. Gentleman my point of objection. In Clause 4, as it originally stood, years of approved service by a constable in one Police Force in Great Britain should be reckoned as service on his joining another Force. It applied to Great Britain, and we did not make any objection, because the Police Force in Scotland is very much the same as in England. The Home Secretary has however, suddenly foisted on the ratepayers of Great Britain the Royal. Irish Constabulary, the armed force which keeps the Irish people in order. I object that a force which is in no sense a police force, but which is simply a military force, kept for the purpose of dragooning the Irish people, should be placed on the same level as the purely civil forces of England and Scotland. I doubt not there are many decent men in the ranks of the Royal Irish Constabulary, but take them as a whole, they are more akin to a military than a civil force. Now, the hon. Member for Sheffield is presently going to move an Amendment that service in the Army and Navy shall be reckoned in computing pensions for policemen. Has he got the Government assent to that proposal? I understand that the Government are going to resist that Amendment to provide that service in the Army or the Navy should be reckoned. If this is the case, then with what consistency can they support the reckoning' of the services of the Royal Irish Constabulary, which is much more like an army than a police force? We deeply regret that this fruitful source of discussion was
  1830
  not discovered on Clause 4; but, inasmuch as the same question now arises, it will be our duty to resist this Amendment. Holding our peculiar views— and intelligible views—of the constitution of the Royal Irish Constabulary the right hon. Gentlemen can hardly expect us to assent to all such members of that force who come over here being allowed to compete with our own people here for enhanced pensions. I shall take a Division against the Amendment.
  MR. BRUNNER: This proposal is exceedingly unfair to the English police. A great many of us are looking forward to the time when there will be a very large exodus of the Constabulary from Ireland where their numbers are far beyond the requirements of a peaceful country—
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not think this discussion is in order. The point has been already settled. This is a consequential Amendment upon the decision the House has arrived at, and it is impossible for the hon. Member to raise the discussion again, as if it were a new question.
  MR. STOREY: On the point of order, Sir, will you permit me to point out that the question settled upon Clause 4 was that years of approved service in any Police Force in Great Britain should be reckoned as approved service for a pension, but this practically raises the question of including Ireland.
  MR. SPEAKER: Clauses 4 and 14 raise practically the same question, and, indeed, I may remind the hon. Member that he began his speech by remarking that this was a formal and consequential Amendment. I thought the hon. Member was going to make a few remarks, and not to raise the whole question again. He would be clearly out of order in doing that.
  (11.50.) The House divided:—Ayes-57; Noes 128.—(Div. List, No. 231.)
  It being after Midnight, Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended, stood adjourned.
  Further Consideration, as amended, to be resumed to-morrow.

  LOCAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 334.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  REGISTRATION OF ASSURANCES (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 333.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  SUPPLY [16TH JULY] REPORT.
  Order read, for resuming the Consideration of Postponed Resolution.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £80,687, 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, 1891, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Irish. Laud Commission."
  Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. DILLON): I think it necessary to avail myself of this opportunity of bringing under the notice of the House a matter in connection with the administration of the Purchase Department of the Land Commission in Ireland. It must be evident that the Purchase Department will rapidly become, if it has not already become, by far the more important part of the Commission. It is equally plain that it is a matter of the gravest possible importance, not only to the people of Ireland, but also to the taxpayers in this country, that the Irish Land Commission should be administered in a way that is above suspicion. In my judgment, the Land Purchase Department of the Commission is administered in a most unsatisfactory way. The law has been expounded in a contradictory sense by the two gentlemen who are at the head of the Department, and, as laid down by one of them, it leaves the gate wide open for the most monstrous frauds on the Exchequer of this country. The law as it is now administered leaves it open to the Irish Landlords who desire to sell their estates to compel tenants to pay grossly unjust prices for their holdings, and to undertake obligations they are
  1832
  utterly unable to discharge. I shall bring under the notice of the Government certain statements which have been furnished to me by local men, regarding the estate of the Marquess of Waterford; and, I guard myself by saying, I am not prepared to vouch for their accuracy. They are charges of the most serious character, and I say it is the business and duty of the Irish Executive to see that they are properly investigated. In most, if not in all, of the cases in which agreements to purchase have been signed by tenants on the Marquess of Waterford's estate, the tenants were in arrear with their rent. I hold that, no matter what the merits of a case may be, wherever there is the slightest suspicion of duress, the tenant should always be able, up to the last moment, to get out of his transaction. On December 23rd, 1888, Mr. Lynch heard some cases from this estate, and refused to allow the tenants to withdraw from their agreement. The purchases were, therefore, compulsorily concluded, and a number of the tenants have since made default in their payments, being quite unable to find the money. I hold in my hand a letter from a well-known and respected priest, in County Waterford, who says nearly all Lord Waterford's tenants, who purchased, were forced to buy at about 20 years' purchase, and tome of them had not been able to pay a single instalment of their payments. He says that the holding of the defaulters has been put up for sale by the Land Commission, and has been bought in at a nominal figure "it is said for Lord Waterford himself." If that is true there was never a more monstrous fraud. The case can be summed up thus. A landlord coerces a tenant, through fear of eviction, to buy at an extravagant price. The tenant being unable to pay the instalment, the holding is put up for sale by the Land Commissioners. The sale is boycotted, or, in other words, the neighbouring tenants will not bid. The landlord then comes forward and buys in the holding at a nominal figure, and the State has to bear the loss. Say that the State has advanced £100 in respect of the holding. Of this sum the Commission hold £20 as the guarantee deposit, the landlord getting £80. When the farm is sold it

  1833
  is bought in by the landlord, say for £50. The costs amount to about £10, so that the Land Commission get out of the whole transaction £60. The landlord, on the other hand, gets back the farm free of tenant right, and pockets £30 or £40 by the transaction. I think the Chief Secretary is bound to get up in this House and explain what flaw there is in my statement. The gate is wide open to these monstrous frauds. The information I have received shows that this very course of action I have indicated has been practised in more than one case on the Marquess of Water-ford's estate, and, if the facts have not been correctly reported to me, the Chief Secretary is bound to explain whether it is a fact or not that it is possible to do such things in the Land Purchase Department, as the law stands; and if it is possible a more gross and shameful fraud on the Exchequer of this country was never perpetrated in the history of England. I wish now to draw attention to a most extraordinary case, which throws a lurid light on the proceedings of one of the members of the Land Commission, and constitutes a strong case for an inquiry into the administration and connections of Mr. Lynch. A certain estate in County Cork, belonging to Mr. Herbert O'Sullivan—formerly a butter merchant in Cork—was originally very much rackrented, the rental being £1,141. The Sub-Commissioners about two years ago reduced the rent—taking the whole estate—over 50 per cent. In spite of these immense reductions difficulties arose, and the tenants did not regularly pay their rents, and though it was sworn to in Court, and no attempt was made to deny it on the part of the landlord, that no combination had existed on the estate —that the Plan of Campaign had never existed on it, and that we agitators, on whose shoulders so much, blame lias been cast, had never operated there—so horrible had been the rack-renting that the tenants were unable to pay these reduced rents. Herbert O'Sullivan became a bankrupt, and the estate came into the hands of a Receiver, and it came out, in the course of negotiations for the sale of the estate, that the owner had refused £28,000 for it. After long negotiation the tenants signed an agree-
  1834
  ment to purchase the estate for £8,885, but the Land Purchase Department would only allow them to give £7,145. That conveys a most awful picture of the torture to which tenants have been subjected in the past. This case came before Judge Munro, of the Landed Estates Court, whom the Chief Secretary proposes as the head of the future Land Commission, and that learned Judge, after giving the history of the estate, said he would not accept the offer of the Land Commission, and he left the unfortunate tenants, over whom there are notices of eviction pending, in their present condition, subject to this enormous rent. In the course of the negotiations some very remarkable correspondence took place between a solicitor, named J. B. Lynch, the son of one of the Land Commissioners, and the Catholic curate of the parish, Father Twoomey. In one letter Mr. Lynch stated that the total price which they ought to receive from the tenant should be at least £13,000, and if the tenants agreed to this purchase, Father Twoomey would be accepted as tenant at a price much below the value of the property. The letter went on to state that if Father Twoomey negotiated the sale he would be allowed 5 per cent. on anything obtained over £13,000. That is to say, if they got £14.000, Father Twoomey would receive £50, and if they got £15,000, Father Twoomey would receive £100. A more indecent proposal was never brought before the House, and I say that the whole transaction assumes a grave and serious character when we remember that this sale would be carried out by the son of the man who has to decide on the ultimate carriage of the sale. I doubt whether it is decent or proper for a son of Mr. Lynch to practice in his father's Court at all; but when we find him trying to get Irish priests to induce the tenants to give a monstrous sum for an estate— and the valuation of the Land Commissioners themselves shows this to be a monstrous sum—I say it is an outrage, and calculated to give a rude shock to public confidence in this Commission, and, so far as Mr. Commissioner Lynch is concerned, it throws a doubt on his impartiality as between landlord and tenant in these transactions. The greatest possible responsibility is

  1835
  thrown on these Purchase Commissioners,' both as acting between Landlord and tenant in Ireland, and acting for the good and the future peace of Ireland, and as guardians of the Treasury. It should be their aim to secure the country against further complications and difficulties in levying the instalments of this purchase money. I need hardly say that this clergyman I have referred to did not respond to the letters of Mr. Lynch. All he did with regard to them was to put them in the way of being made use of in order to expose the transaction. Mr. Lynch did not stop at this. In this way he furnished us with the first proof of the methods adopted in these cases, but on the 13th December last he wrote again saying that unless he received an answer before Christmas he would have the ejectment put in force against the tenants. That is the case with regard to O'Sullivan's estate, and I assert that the facts, which I have proved by documentary evidence, require some explanation, for they throw the greatest possible doubt on the bona fides of Mr. Lynch. I will add nothing to the bare, naked facts, or their result on the character of Mr. John P. Lynch, who, I understand, is the son of the Land Purchase Commissioner himself. I think Mr. J. P. Lynch is no credit either to himself or the profession he belongs to. I now come to the third point which I desire to bring before the House, and which, I believe, is the most important of all. It has reference to a recent judgment delivered by Mr. Commissioner M'Carthy concerning a most important question which arose in the administration of the Land Purchase Act. The cases which came before the Court were those of tenants on the Lansdowne Estate. A long list of agreements to purchase was brought before Mr. M'Carthy, and the point was whether new tenants should be substituted for the evicted tenants. Mr. M'Carthy laid it down that in administering the Act he was bound to consider its meaning and spirit and the purpose of the Legislature in passing it, and he held that the purpose of the Legislature was to apply a remedy to the evils existing in Ireland, and that no case could be made out for the Land Purchase Bill unless it was intended for the removal of grievances. Accordingly,
  1836
  Mr. M'Carthy refused to sanction the agreements. I regret to hear that we have not heard the last of these cases as yet, and that the influential position and great connections of the Marquess of Lansdowne will be used for a most unworthy purpose—namely, for the purpose of putting pressure on the Land Commissioners, overawing Mr. M'Carthy, and making him go back on the judgments he has delivered, and consenting to transactions which he has condemned as hostile to the spirit of the Act, and thoroughly subversive of the object of the Legislature. But there is another way in which this judgment can be reconsidered. About a fortnight after this judgment was delivered, a somewhat similar class of cases were brought before Mr. Commissioner Lynch, and he gave a decision which, to use the words of the Daily Express, was at right angles to the judgment of Mr. Commissioner M'Carthy. That judgment reversed the judgment of Mr. M'Carthy and laid down principles of law which are absolutely subversive and contradictory of the principles laid down by Mr. Commissioner M'Cartlry. Mr. Lynch said that the Commissioners had no jurisdiction to rescind a contract entered into between landlord and tenant. I think everyone will say that that judgment is absolutely contradictory of the judgment given by Mr. M'Carthy. Let us consider the character of the cases in reference to which Mr. Commissioner Lynch laid down this principle of the law. Everyone in the House will agree with me that the principles laid down by Mr. Commissioner Lynch are absolutely intolerable, and at variance with the objects and purposes of the House of Commons when it passed the Land Purchase Act. The cases dealt with by Mr. Commissioner Lynch came from an estate in Westmeath, and the tenants were said to be tenants of large grazing tracts. Commissioner Lynch annulled the agreements of sale because, as he alleged, on inquiry, he discovered that the tenants, although represented to him as being in possession under yearly contract of tenancy, were in reality not in possession at all at the time the agreements were made. He stated it was on this ground that he had refused to sanction the sales, and that had the tenants been put

  1837
  in bonâ fide possession, with stock of their own, he would have sanctioned the sale. I think the House is entitled to know which of these judgments can be accepted as the law in Ireland. It is a matter most vital to the future of the Purchase Act in Ireland and to any attempt to pass another Purchase Act. Mr. Commissioner Lynch distinctly laid it down that he refused the agreements on the ground that the tenants were not bona fide in occupation of their holdings. A more preposterous or monstrous fraud could not be conceived with regard to the intentions of the Legislature than the judgment of Mr. Commissioner Lynch. I believe that if the people of this country had understood the true nature of such transactions as that of which Mr. Commissioner Lynch has approved they would never have sanctioned the advance of 1s. more for the purchase of land in Ireland, and, therefore, it is of the most vital importance that the whole matter should be thoroughly investigated Unless the Government can see their way to make a distinct declaration in reference to this matter, it will be the duty of the Irish Members to denounce the whole of the Act throughout the length and breadth of Ireland. I think that those who were in favour of this policy of land purchase are acting unwisely in mixing it up with the eviction policy. It should not be made subservient to the evicting landlords of Ireland, or turned into a department of the Property Defence Association, as I think it is being rapidly turned into. I believe that a new Department is to be started in connection with the Land Commission, known as the Congested Districts Department. It is proposed to place Mr. Commissioner M'Carthy at the head of it. I am informed that this is a scheme to get Mr. Commissioner M'Carthy out of the way, and that a threat is to be held over his head that if he is not subservient to the landlords in these matters he will be transferred to some other Department. If pressure is to be put upon Mr. M'Carthy to reverse his judgment, it will be one of the greatest scandals that have ever disgraced modern administration in Ireland. I feel that the matters I have called attention to deserve careful investigation, and if they are disregarded a
  1838
  serious blow will be struck at public confidence in Ireland in the administration of the Land Department. If the Government adopt the view of the law laid down by Mr. Lynch, and lend the public money of this country for the purpose of aiding the landlords to sell their land, the last hope will be taken away of any peace or order in the disturbed districts of Ireland. I shall be sorry if the Government take any such course. The chances that the Government have of passing the Purchase Bill during the coming Session of Parliament will be very materially lessened if we are in a position to come before the country and the House, and prove that the Purchase Bill has been used for such nefarious purposes, which will be the means of creating and perpetrating disorder rather than of creating peace in the country.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I think the hon. Gentleman through the greater part of his speech must have conceived himself to be addressing the House not on the Report of Supply but upon the Land Purchase Bill which was brought forward at an earlier stage of the Session. His observations went beyond any criticism, legitimate or illegitimate, of the proceedings of the Land Commission. Towards the end of the hon. Gentleman's remarks he endeavoured to extract, or I may say, he demanded, from the Government an ex pression of their legislative policy in the next Session of Parliament. I conceive I should be grossly out of order if I followed the line the hon. Gentleman has traced out for me to pursue. In the few remarks I have to make I will confine myself to those remarks of the hon. Member in which he dealt with the present action of the Land Commission rather than the future action of the Government. I wish to offer one observation to this effect, that if the hon. Member is afraid, as he professes to be afraid, that the Government desire to drive Mr. M'Carthy out of the Public Service because of a judgment he has delivered, then I would suggest to the

  1839
  hon. Member and his friends that they should assist the Government in giving to Mr. M'Carthy and his Colleagues that fixity of tenure the Government desire to give them. The hon. Gentleman has alluded at great length to a statement made by Mr. M'Carthy upon the general principle which regulates his action as one of the Land Commissioners. I feel sure that the hon. Member has entirely misrepresented the views that Mr. M'Carthy holds. The hon. Member has attributed to Mr. M'Carthy the doctrine that within the four corners of the Act is to be found a provision which prevents public money being advanced to any tenancy created subsequent to the passing of the Act. I am perfectly certain that Mr. M'Carthy never uttered any judgment so wholly absurd and so wholly baseless, so utterly at variance with the judgment of his colleague, Mr.Lynch. Of course, if Mr. M'Carthy thinks and holds, as is probable, that bogus tenants should not be encouraged, he is right, and in that he would be supported by any Government, but to expand that doctrine into the absurd opinion that because a tenancy has been created since the passing of the Land Act, the tenant is not to be allowed money to purchase his holding, is not only a doctrine wholly inconsistent with the Act of Parliament, but to attribute to Mr. M'Carthy an opinion that he never for one moment entertained.
  MR. DILLON: I did not say he entertained that opinion. I read out Mr. M'Carthy's statement. What I said was that Mr. M'Carthy claimed a discretion to refuse certain tenants on the ground which I read out, and Mr. Lynch said that no discretion existed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am quite sure Mr. Lynch never said the Land Commission is bound to advance money to bogus tenants, and I feel bound to protect Mr. M'Carthy from the imputation that he holds that public money ought not to be advanced to tenants whose tenancies have been created subsequent to the passing of the Act. Now, the hon. Gentleman has given us a large number of details, for the accuracy of which he did not vouch, in relation to Lord Waterford's estates. Though the report of this Vote has been pending for many days, the hon. Member has given me no notice of the
  1840
  subjects he intended to refer to, and it is, therefore, somewhat difficult to reply fully to the speech of the hon. Gentleman. It is said that certain sales on Lord Waterford's estate in 1888 were carried out when the tenants were under duress. But that point has been threshed out before the Land Commission, and proved to have no foundation. The terms of the sale were such that the tenants would have had 20 per cent. reduction on their rents. So there was no reason to doubt the rents would be paid in the form of an annuity. Next, complaint is made that Lord Waterford bought in certain farms at a nominal price when, in default of the purchasing tenants, they were put up for sale. The hon. Gentleman did not tell us, but I conceive the land was subject to the original annuity. Nor did the hon. Gentleman tell us that the land was boycotted by the neighbouring tenants. Then the hon. Gentleman brought forward the conduct of a Mr. Lynch in regard to the sale of the O'Sullivan property. But this has really no connection with the Vote. Mr. Lynch was alleged to have offered a certain Catholic curate a commission if he could induce the tenants to give 17 years' purchase. It is said that Mr. Lynch is a son of Commissioner Lynch; but Commissioner Lynch took no part in this matter, and, as a matter of fact, so far from the Land Commission having anything to do with this action of Mr. Lynch, the Land Commission subsequently refused to authorise the purchase at more than nine or 10 years' purchase. The incident merely shows that Mr. Lynch did the best for his employer, and Mr. Lynch, the Land Commissioner, did his best for the State. How this can be made the foundation for an indictment against the Land Commission I confess I utterly fail to see.
  MR. SEXTON): I cannot agree that my hon. Friend has gone beyond the proper area of the subjects which may be debated on this Vote. As to the Waterford estate, the tenants were in arrear, and in cases in Ireland where the tenants are in arrear we cannot exercise too much caution in reference to the transactions of purchase, because when a tenant is in arrear

  1841
  the landlord has a terrible force of compulsion in his hand for inducing the tenant to agree to his terms of purchase If the tenant will not so agree his only alternative is eviction, which, to an Irish tenant, means ruin. In the case of the Waterford estate the tenants who were in arrear entered into agreements to purchase. They represented to the Land Commissioners that these agreements had been signed under duress, but the Land Commissioners, disregarding that intimation, insisted on carrying out the agreements, with the natural consequences of default, and in all such cases where the landlords or someone were able to purchase the farms at a nominal sum, the balance between the nominal price and the original purchase money remaining unpaid becomes a dead loss to the State. I submit to the Chief Secretary the gravity of the fact, be cause his Land Purchase Bill holds out three alternatives in case of default in payment of instalments; the State is either to manage the farm, or to re-let it, or to sell it. The story told by my hon. Friend shows how two of those may fail. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to advance the proposition that a tenant being evicted from a farm because of his inability to pay his instalments, another purchaser can make it pay when he buys the land at a nominal price, plus the instalments? The suggestion is absurd. In the case my hon. Friend cited the tenants were in arrears, they were put under duress, and agreed to pay an excessive and impossible purchase price; they failed to keep up their instalments, the Land Commission could neither manage the farms nor let them, and so had to sell at a dead loss to the State. My hon. Friend, though he did not pledge himself to personal knowledge of the facts of the case —though when he has done that it has not availed him with this House—yet has every faith in the credibility of his informants. My hon. Friend has made out a case which is certainly deserving of a better answer than has been given by the right hon. Gentleman, and the matter is one which ought to be inquired into. With regard to the O'Sullivan estate—
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: With respect to that portion of the hon. Member for Mayo's speech, I listened in expectation of seeing the missing link to connect it with this Vote, but I cannot say that the hon. Member produces any link to connect it.
  MR. SEXTON: It is rather embarrassing that a case which has been treated to an opening speech, and a speech in reply, now appears difficult of debate. I would submit that this John P. Lynch, who made this offer to the priest, is a solicitor now practising before the Land Commission, and that, therefore, it would be the duty of the Land Commission to restrain him from practising in that Court.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
  MR. SEXTON: I say he made a corrupt and criminal offer to a priest.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think this has not sufficient connection with the Vote.
  MR. SEXTON: It is a function of the Land Commissioners to determine whether the solicitors practising before their Court are persons who ought to practise. But if you tell me, Sir, distinctly, I am not at liberty to pursue the subject, I will not do so.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think it is not pertinent to the Vote.
  MR. SEXTON: Very well, Sir. With regard to the conflicting judgments of Commissioners Lynch and M'Carthy, and I think no one who heard the contention of my hon. Friend can doubt there is such a conflict, I say the Chief Secretary has entirely evaded the issue, which is whether a certain class of bogus tenants are to be brought into farms after the eviction of the preceding tenants, for the purpose of enabling them to complete the transaction of purchase and enabling the landlord to dip his hands in the pocket of the State.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said no bogus tenants should be allowed aid to purchase.
  MR. SEXTON: Then it is a question what is a bogus tenant. Mr. Commissioner Lanch has said that where a contract of tenancy exists, the Purchase

  1843
  Commission is not in a position to inquire further. But I say that is only the beginning of inquiry. The intention of this Parliament was to put an end to the evils arising from the impossible position in which tenants were placed, to emancipate them from the sway of the landlords. A vital question for the Land Commission to determine is whether or not a tenant who desires to enter into a contract of purchase is a bond fide agricultural tenant who lives by the cultivation of the land. In such a case Parliament has declared that the credit of the State shall be employed to assist him to purchase. But there are numerous cases in which landlords, having evicted their tenants, enter into contracts of purchase with new tenants who are not agricultural tenants in any sense, who are mere adventurers from towns in Ireland, who merely go into the farm and go through the form of contract with the landlord in order to enable the latter to pocket the money of the State. They pay no rent, they have no stock, for that is supplied by political associations, such as that with which the hon. Member for South Tyrone is connected; they engage to buy at an excessive price, and when the plunder is secured from the State and divided these bogus tenants disappear. It is difficult to reconcile the unwillingness of the right hon. Gentleman to give a frank reply to-night with the reception he gave a short time ago to a speech delivered in the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Cork. In that speech the hon. Member for Cork proposed a system of Courts of Arbitration in Ireland. I will not discuss that now, but I think I may say the right hon. Gentleman welcomed that proposal with effusion. Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that the establishment of such Courts of Arbitration, to determine in a reasonable and amicable manner disputes existing on estates where evictions have taken place, is at right angles with the policy that encourages the landlord to evict and then to bring in tenants upon whom he can impose any terms in order to secure the money of the State?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never suggested anything like such a policy.
  MR. SEXTON: No, the right hon. Gentlemen can be very prudent and taciturn upon occasion. But I say we have a right to know as between these Commissioners what view is to prevail. Mr. Commissioner Lynch holds that if there is a contract of tenancy the Commission can inquire no further in the matter, but that is only the beginning of the inquiry. Mr. Commissioner M'Carthy contends that they have a right to inquire what is the security to the State, and I say there can be no security to the State where a bogus tenant is allowed to purchase. If the policy of Mr. Lynch is allowed to prevail it will lead to bad results. It will give fatal stimulus to eviction, and the public opinion of Ireland will be considerably set against the whole policy of purchase. The public opinion of England will revolt against immense sums of Imperial money being advanced on such a doctrine as that laid down by Mr. Lynch. The Government are fond of taking credit for the success of the said Ashbourne Act. If the Ashbourne Act has been administered with safety to the State, it is due to the sagacity and prudence of Mr. Commissioner McCarthy, whose views secure a just balance between the claims of the landlord, the tenant, and the State.
  (1.25.) Question put, and agreed to.

  EIGHTS OF WAY (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 216.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

CATHEDRAL CHURCHES BILL [LORDS]. (No. 186.)
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.
It being after One of the clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Two o'clock.

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—
Poor Law (Ireland) Rating.
Pauper Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) (Officers' Superannuation).
Boiler Explosions Act, 1882, Amendment.
Infectious Disease (Prevention).
Anglo-German Agreement.
Foreign Jurisdiction (Consolidation).
Statute Law Revision. Removal Terms (Scotland) Act (1886) Amendment.
Birstall Wesleyan Chapel Trust Scheme Confirmation.
Shrewsbury and Holyhead Road (Anglesey and Carnarvon).
And a number of Private Bills.

METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT AND BUILDING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 168.)
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee adjourned on Friday last over this day; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
THE EARL OF MORLEY: My Lords, the Motion that stands in my name requires a few words of explanation. The Motion is that the Bill relating to the Dublin Corporation be re-committed so far as relates to Part IV. The facts of the case are these: When the Bill came up from the House of Commons these clauses relating to the collection of rates were in such a condition that the Committee to which the Bill was referred did not consider, under the circumstances, they were able to pass the clauses. Perhaps I had better read the Chairman of the Committee's statement on the subject. He states—
"I have to remark in the first instance, that the Bill, as it left the other House, did not
1710
attempt to deal with the great difficulty in the case, that of the altered position of the Collector General and his staff, his duties being the same, or nearly the same under the Bill, with only one-third of the sum available for the payment of himself and his staff."
Then he recommends that the rating clauses of the Bill ought to be struck out, and that the preamble be amended accordingly. Since that decision was arrived at clauses have been prepared which have been agreed to by certain parties to the Bill. It was thought extremely desirable by them that the matter should be again brought before the same Committee, when, of course, any opponents of the new clauses, whoever they might be, would have an opportunity of being heard. It was a point of some difficulty, and it was thought by myself far better that the matter should be settled in a satisfactory manner here, and sent down in a satisfactory form to the Commons. That is all I have to say now about the matter. It is not, of course, for me to express any opinion, or to make any statements as to the merits of the case, in regard to which I am afraid I am not competent to speak,
Moved—
"That the Bill be re-committed so far as relates to Part IV. (Rates), and the corresponding recitals in the preamble."—(The Chairman of Committees.)
THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD(who spoke by leave of the House sitting): My Lords, I must really make the strongest protest I am able against the Motion of the noble Earl. I do not think the Motion comes exactly from himself. I think it is a change of front on the part of Her Majesty's Government, and a very extraordinary change of front it is. I will put before your Lordships very shortly what happened with regard to his Bill. Originally, when the Bill came into another place, it proposed to transfer the appointment of the Collector General to the Corporation. Well, that was opposed by Her Majesty's Government, and amended, and it was then arranged that the Corporation should collect its own rates, and that the other rates should still be collected by the Collector General. The Bill was then placed before a Committee of your Lordships' House. It was again opposed by Her Ma-

1711
jesty's Government, these clauses were opposed by the Government in the person of Sir Richard Wyatt acting for the Government, it was opposed by the Chambers of Commerce in Dublin, who represent the largest ratepayers in that town. It was also opposed by the Port and Docks Board. Now, let me point out what happened then. All these different bodies have been heard by counsel upstairs, at great expense to them; and now, by the re-committal of this Bill, they must go through all that expense again. It is a most unsatisfactory arrangement; and I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that if the Government opposed this Bill up stairs they should not have changed front now, and come forward with a large sheaf of other clauses which the Government made no mention of before that Committee. I may mention that the clauses in Part IV. of this Bill were unanimously rejected by the Committee upstairs. These new clauses which the noble Chairman has suggested will improve the Bill are perfectly unworkable. They are most complicated; and to prove to your Lordships that even the framers of these clauses do not think much of them, they have inserted a proviso at the end that if either of the parties object to them they are at the end of six months to become a dead letter and to no longer have effect. I think on the part of the framers them selves that is not saying very much in favour of these clauses. I say these clauses simply do not carry out the original decision of the House of Commons. That decision was that the Corporation should collect its own rates. This does not even arrange for that; but it arranges that the Corporation is to interfere with the collection of all rates. I must protest very strongly against this change of front- The expense of this re-committal will to everybody be very great. The opponents received no notice, and at the last moment these clauses are brought for ward, clauses which are very crude, and, as I venture to think, though I cannot claim great skill draughtsman, extremely badly drawn. From my own knowledge of the country also I believe them to be absolutely unworkable. They arrange that the Corporation shall
1712
have the appointment of two-thirds of the staff by which they provide really for the collection of the whole of the rates in Dublin. I hope sincerely that if your Lordships agree to refer this Bill to the Committee again the Committee will not follow the example of Her Majesty's Government, but will adhere to their former decision.
THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: I beg to support every word which has been said by the noble Lord who has just sat down, and to protest most strongly against the action taken in re-committing this Bill. The clauses relating to rating have been unanimously rejected by the Committee upstairs. At the same time, other similar clauses have been inserted at the action of certain persons, and I shall be very much obliged if the noble Lord will inform the House why the wishes of those certain persons who have met these clauses with approbation have been consulted in the matter, and why this Bill is to be laid before the Committee upstairs again without any notice. It has caused, I am bound to say, great consternation among a large number of Her Majesty's citizens in Dublin, who had no notice that this action was to be taken, and who thought that when the Bill came down from the other House all further legislation on that head was at an end. I must say that I think the various opponents of this Bill have great cause of complaint, for not only have they been taken completely by surprise, but they will be put to great expense in having to employ counsel at great expense to re-argue the case.
THE EARL OF MORLEY: I think I ought to explain, in answer to what has fallen from the noble Duke, that the opponents of the Bill have had ample warning or notice in this matter. The Motion which I have made has been on the Paper for a week, and ample opportunity has therefore been given to any persons desirous of opposing the Bill, and discussing the matter before the Committee.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN): I rise not at all for the purpose of entering into the matters which have been referred to by the noble Lords, or with any desire of prolonging this discussion, but merely to point out that the question before the House is whether this Bill should be re-

1713
committed or not. I am bound to say that in my opinion the noble Lord, the Chairman of Committees, has shown good ground for such re-committal, and I hope your Lordships will agree to it. On Question agreed to.

SWAZILAND.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I rise to put a question to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The Session is more or less approaching an end, and it would be, I think, very desirable if he could inform the House what is the state of the negotiations with regard to Swaziland, whether any arrangement has been come to with the South African Republic, and whether, before we adjourn, Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to place before the House any Papers on the matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): My Lords, I am glad the noble Earl has been good enough to put this question to me, because the matter is one which is of great importance and which has naturally excited much interest in this country as well as in South Africa. I am happy, therefore, to be able to state that we learned yesterday that the result of the negotiations, conducted in a most friendly spirit between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the South African Republic, has been the making of a Convention which secures the independence of Swaziland, and a joint Government over the white settlers for a term of years, and provides other terms, to which, with your Lordships' permission, I will shortly refer. This Convention has been signed by the President, and is to be submitted this day to the Volksraad for ratification. Papers will be presented to Parliament on the subject as soon as possible, but, looking at the importance of the subject, I trust your Lordships will allow me to make a short statement in explanation of the course of events which led up to these negotiations, and also of the action of Her Majesty's Government. Swaziland has an area of about 8,000 square miles, and is surrounded on three sides by the South African Republic. It has a native population of about 63,000, about 9,000
  1714
  of this number being fighting men. In the Report of Sir Francis de Winton, to which I shall have occasion later on to refer, he well describes the Swazis as "a happy, contented, work-hating, wild people." As regards the number of white residents it is very difficult to make any accurate calculations; but referring to Sir Francis de Winton's Report, I may observe that he says that—
  "As regards the White residents, it is difficult to arrive at their correct numbers, so many persons being non-resident, though possessed of interests in Swaziland, and a proper register of those entitled to vote for the White Committee never having been kept. The mineral holders, miners, canteen and store keepers, missionaries, and a few permanent farmers are the only residents in the country. These consist chiefly of subjects of Great Britain. The non-residents consist of grazing holders and concessionaires. These are chiefly subjects of the Transvaal, or persons who have interests in the South African Republic. Roughly speaking, the subjects and sympathisers of the South African Republic represent 3 to 1 as to other nationalities, but they do not represent much capital."
  As regards the trade of the country, it may be shortly stated that the main trade is through Delagoa Bay and Natal. The trade between Natal and Swaziland is about £70,000 a year, and it may be said that the trade and commerce of Swaziland generally have been chiefly created by the wants of the white residents, and are almost entirely in the hands of Englishmen, with the exception of one or two Germans. Little is produced in the country out of which revenue can be collected. The present revenue of the country mainly consists of rents, obligations and transfer fees due under concessions; licences, taxes, and Customs dues. The former are paid to the King or Representative of the Swazi nation, and are computed to amount to about £20,000 a year, while the other portion of the revenue, that is, the portion derived from licences, taxes, and Customs dues, may be stated at about £8,000 a year. I need not weary your Lordships by going into the early history of Swaziland, a full account of which is contained in Sir Francis de Winton's Report; but I may mention that the independence of the Swazis and the continuance of that independence were fully recognised by Article 12 of the Convention of 1884, known as the Convention of London, and made between

  1715
  this Government and the South African Republic. I may add that Her Majesty's Government have throughout desired to proceed on the lines of that Convention, to maintain Article 12 in its integrity, and to secure the independence of the Swazis. It will be convenient that I should state shortly the position of the two countries under the Convention of 1884 as regards Swaziland, as it had, of course, an important bearing upon the conduct of the negotiations. Under Article 12, by which the independence of Swaziland was recognised, it would not be competent for Her Majesty, without breach of that Article, to take Swaziland under her protection in the recognised meaning of that expression. But Her Majesty's Government can, under Article 2 of that Convention, if they think fit, appoint Commissioners and a body of police in Swaziland to maintain order and prevent encroachments in Swaziland. Upon the appeal of the Swazi King Her Majesty might afford him help required to protect the independence of his territory, but again, without breach of Article 12 of the Convention, Her Majesty could not accept a surrender of his dominions and declare them to be British territory. On the other hand, the Government of the South African Republic cannot take any steps to annex Swaziland, without breach of the Convention, nor can they conclude any Treaty of protection over Swaziland, until Her Majesty has approved, nor can they appoint Commissioners under Article 2. In 1886 Mr. Theophilus Shepstone was appointed adviser to the King, and to secure good government over the white settlers a representative white Committee was appointed in July, 1887. The members of that Committee, however, signally failed to perform their duties, and the reasons are very graphically given by Sir Francis de Winton in his Report. He states that—
  "The minutes of the proceedings of this Committee, with the exception of those of September, 1889 (not entered), show that some attempt was made, at the commencement, to administer the affairs of the white residents in Swaziland by the members composing it; but the Committee having no experience in administration, and nearly all having private interests in the country, the record of these minutes are a painful evidence of internal dissensions, continued differences, and an absence of any desire to contribute to the real
  1716
  welfare of the country. Latterly, the country was left to govern itself, as the members-were engaged in getting concessions for themselves and their friends."
  The Committee was dissolved in 1889, and in October of that year King Um-bandine died and a regency was started. And now I will refer very briefly to the course of events which has led to the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry, and to the present negotiations. In January, 1889, matters had got into a very serious and dangerous state. The King had granted concessions to everybody, right and left, and the history of these concessions, as has been observed by Sir Francis de Winton, is probably without parallel, for the King and his Council in Swaziland had not only granted away all their actual property and territory, but also all those rights which should only belong to the Government of a country. On January 30, 1889, Sir Hercules Robinson reported to me that the time had arrived for Her Majesty's Government to decide whether the British Government or the Transvaal Government should now take over Swaziland. In March we received proposals from the South African Republic; they proposed that the territory of Swaziland should be added to the Republic, and said that they considered this "the only practical solution of the danger of disturbances." At that time our information was very insufficient as to the real state of things, and very contradictory as to the wishes of the King of the Swazis and his people. Her Majesty's Government, therefore, proposed a Joint Committee of Inquiry, and ultimately Sir Francis de Winton was appointed to act in conjunction with the Transvaal Commissioners. I would observe, in passing, that it will be seen from the Papers that Her Majesty's Government have always been fully alive to the necessity of preventing a separate interference in Swazi matters by the South African Republic; and in June, 1889, for example, when we learned that an officer was going to be sent by the President into Swaziland, on the ground that it was alleged that disturbances would take place in the following July, Her Majesty's Government immediately telegraphed out that they would not sanction separate action, and that they would send up, as,

  1717
  in fact, we did send up, Colonel Martin with, police to act with the Transvaal officers. On September 36 of last year Sir Francis de Winton was appointed. I will not trouble your Lordships with the instructions which were issued to Sir Francis de Winton. They will appear with the Report which will be presented to Parliament. I will only read one paragraph of the instructions given to him, as showing the line we desired to take in reference to this matter.
  "In your discussions with the Commissioner of the South African Republic and in any recommendation you may make, you are at liberty to take into consideration the relations of the affairs of Swaziland to the interests of South Africa generally; bearing in mind that Her Majesty's Government desire to arrive at a satisfactory and enduring understanding with the South African Republic in regard to all the tribes and countries bordering thereon, and that it is an essential feature of our policy that there shall be no undue restrictions on the developmemt and advancement of British trade and enterpaise in any part of South Africa."
  But pending those proceedings and the settlement of the question it was necessary to appoint a temporary Commission to keep peace and order in Swaziland, in place of the White Committee, to which I have before referred, and Colonel Martin was appointed the British Commissioner. I desire now publicly to express our sense of the good service rendered by Colonel Martin, for it is largely owing to his tact and judgment that peace and order have been hitherto preserved under very trying circumstances in Swaziland. Turning again to the Report of Sir Francis de Winton, it is manifest from what I have said of the legal position of the Governments of the two countries with regard to Swaziland that there were three alternative courses which might be taken consistently with the preservation of the independence of the Swazis—either the government of the whites might be handed over to the Transvaal Government, or we might take it in hand ourselves, or there might be a Joint Government. Sir Francis de Winton's recommendations were opposed to a Joint Government. He thought that complications would probably arise from that form of government. He pointed out in his Report the conditions under which alone Her Majesty' Govern-
  1718
  ment could administer the government of the whites; that it would cost about £22,000 a year, and that we should not have any full command of the Revenues; and there were other reasons which he urged for consideration if that course was to be adopted. He also laid down nine conditions which would have more or less to be observed and enforced if the government of the white settlers was to be handed over to the South African Republic. On the whole, looking to his Report and remembering the conversations which I have had with him, I think I am not doing him an injustice in saying that he was in favour of our allowing the South African Republic to take over the administration of the government of the white settlers. But, after very fall and careful consideration, and looking to the strong feeling in this country, and also to what we believed to be the strong feeling of the, Swazis, Her Majesty's Government decided in favour of a Joint Government over the white settlers. I need not now trouble your Lordships with the details of the various points which have been discussed before the terms of the Convention were settled; but merely say that, subject to the main principles of preserving the independence of the Swazis and securing the Joint Government over the white settlers, we have been most anxious to meet the wishes of the South African Republic. The exact terms of the Convention, as finally settled and as signed yesterday, and which the President is going to lay before the Volksraad today, have not yet arrived, but we know sufficient of the substance of them, from the draft agreements and correspondence which has passed, and I am able to point out the main features of the Convention to your Lordships:—1. The independence of the Swazis, as recognised by the Convention of 1884, is re-affirmed and secured; the control and management by the Swazi Government of all affairs in which natives are concerned remain unaffected. 2. It is provided that there shall be a joint administration over the white settlers, under a proclamation to be issued by the Swazi Regent and Council. 3. A Court of Justice will be established to administer Roman Dutch law; to decide all cases, criminal or civil, between white settlers; and to inquire into the validity of disputed con-

  1719
  cessions. 4. All lawfully acquired rights are to be recognised by the Joint Government Committee, and by all Judicial Tribunals. 5. The Government of the South African Republic undertakes not to interfere to the north or north-west of the Republic, and to support by its influence the establishment of order and government by the British South Africa Company within the jurisdiction and under the powers granted to that company by their charter. 6. Her Majesty's Government recognise the right granted to the South African Republic by concession from the Swazi King to construct a railway through Swaziland towards the sea. They also approve of the South African Republic making Treaties to secure a right to continue that railway to the sea at, or near, Kosi Bay, and to obtain a concession of an area of ten miles in radius from a point at, or near, that Bay. 7. Provision is made to prevent the sovereignty, control, or management of Kosi Bay, or of the area above mentioned, falling into the hands of a foreign Power. 8. Provision is also made for the entering of the South African Republic into the existing Customs Union Convention with the Cape, the Orange Free State, and Bechuanaland, upon terms to be agreed upon. 9. Failing such agreement within six months, the arrangement as to Kosi Bay is to lapse, but the Joint Government of Swaziland will continue for three years certain, and will not be terminated after the expiration of the three years unless six months' previous notice be given by either Party. If the South African Republic enters into the Customs Union, no limit of lime is named for the ending of the Convention. I fear that I have troubled your Lordships at some length, but some such short sketch of the position of affairs was necessary to enable your Lordships to appreciate the effect of the Agreement that has been made with the South African Republic, and I trust that when that Agreement is looked at, and when the position of the two countries with respect to Swaziland is understood, the country will approve of it, and will regard it as a satisfactory arrangement. The independence of Swaziland is secured, a Joint Government is provided for the white settlers, and we have been able to satisfy
  1720
  the natural, and very legitimate, desire of the South African Republic to have some port on the sea coast, while at the same time provision has been made to prevent that harbour, or port, from falling into the hands of a foreign Power. Although all the terms of the Convention may not approve themselves to every body, yet I feel confident that the Convention, on the whole, will be approved in this country as a satisfactory settlement of questions which were in a very unsettled condition, and which would, undoubtedly, if left unsettled, have led to grave complications and very serious trouble. I desire, in conclusion!, to recognise the friendly attitude of the South African Republic throughout this matter, and the good services rendered by Mr. Hofmeyr, who, at great personal inconvenience, went up himself to advise the President as regards the Convention. Nor can I conclude without bearing testimony to the great services, ability, and judgment shown by Sir Francis de Winton and Sir Henry Loch. It is largely owing to the tact and judgment of Sir Henry Loch that this troublesome question has been, as I trust, settled in a friendly spirit, and that our good relations with the South African Republic-have been maintained unimpaired.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I am sure every one must have listened with the greatest interest to the statement of the noble Lord opposite. The matter is so complicated and important that I think it would be unwise to enter into any discussion, or to express any opinion on it now, and until we see the Papers. I can only say that I earnestly trust that the hope which the noble Lord has expressed, that this will be a satisfactory settlement of very difficult questions, may be fulfilled. I only rise for the purpose of asking the noble Lord to say, if he can, within what territory Kosi Bay is situated, and with whom the negotiations for the construction of the railway to Kosi Bay are to be conducted. I should also like to ask whether there are any provisions in the Convention in regard to the transit of goods over that line, and as to the duties to be levied at the port.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: I have been obliged necessarily to cut my statement rather short. The territory at Kosi Bay

  1721
  belongs to the Queen Zambili, and is in Amatongaland. The South African Republic could not, according to the terms of the Convention of 1884, enter into any Treaty on the South-east of the Transvaal, but Her Majesty's Government will now support the Transvaal Government in making Treaties with the Chiefs and with Queen Zambili for constructing and maintaining the railway and the harbour at Kosi Bay. Attention will be paid to securing free rights over the railway which is to be constructed from the Eastern border of the Transvaal, through Swaziland, and on through the Queen Zambili's territory to Kosi Bay. I should not like to give an absolute answer on the other point until we have the Convention before us, but I have every reason to believe that the subject was discussed.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I would ask one other question if the noble Lord will pardon me, and that is whether the position of Amatongaland will be in any way altered, except as regards the particular strip of land required for the railway?
  LORD KNUTSFORD: No, except that a certain portion of land on each side of the railway will be reserved to the South African Republic, and an area of land at or near Kosi Bay.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE BILL.—(No. 231.)
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

  ALDERSHOT ROADS BILL.—(No. 219.)
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Earl BROWNLOW): I have no Amendment in the Bill itself, but I propose to add a few words at the end of it in fulfilment of a promise given in the other House by the First Lord of the Treasury. It will come after Clause 8 at the end.
  Moved to insert—
  "The Secretary of State for War shall, one month before selling any part of the lands shown on the plan referred to in this Act, give notice of his intention to the vestry of the parish in which such lands are situated, and to the county council of Surrey, and shall consider any objections which they may make to such intended sale."
  Amendment agreed to: the Report thereof to be received to-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 247.)

  BANKRUPTCY BILL—(No. 237.)
  House in Committee (on re-commitment) (according to order.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I had proposed to move some Amendments, but I believe my noble and learned Friend will try, if I state what they are, to meet them in the further stages of the Bill. One has reference to the absolute bar upon the discretion of the Court in granting discharges in the event of a person being in the opinion of the Court guilty of any of the misdemeanours mentioned in the Act. I object to the form in which that absolute bar is placed. The second point has reference to the question which was raised by my noble and learned Friend opposite with reference to the obligation to disclaim onerous leases and so forth. As both of those Amendments will, I understand, be made by my noble and learned Friend at a further stage of the Bill I do not propose to move them now.
  Bill reported without further Amendment, and to be read 3ª on Thursday next.

  PHARMACY ACT (IRELAND) (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 172.)
  Amendments reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
CENSUS (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—(No. 226.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to order.)
  Clause 5.
  THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (The Earl of JERSEY): I have one Amendment in this clause. I beg to move that the words in page 2, line 14, after the word "and" be inserted, "In the case of a dwelling-house in Wales or the County of Monmouth." This is to make it perfectly clear that the persons referred to as speaking Welsh are only those living in Wales and Monmouthshire.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 14.
  THE EARL OF POWIS: My Lords, we have been told that this Bill goes exactly on the lines of the Bill of 1880, but in this clause there is an important difference. In the Census Bill of 1880 the phrase used is "constable or other police officer for every parish," which, of course, restricts the use of rural constables to the local constables, and does not make the County Constabulary liable to be called in in addition to their present duties, which are extensive enough, to assist as enumerators. Now, I think it is very desirable that this phrase should be maintained, because the County Constabulary are much fewer in point of numbers than they are in Ireland, for instance, where they do this and every other sort of work; and it will be especially burdensome in the smaller Welsh counties where the number of county constables is very small in comparison with the area. It would be very undesirable that they should be taken away to act as enumerators, which would, of course, employ them, not only during the two days when the Returns are given out and taken back, but would give them a good deal of other employment. This makes but a very small apparent change, but its consequences would be considerable. In accordance, therefore, with the Act of 1880, the word "for" is used, and in page 14, line 24, I move, therefore, that the word "in" be struck out, and the word "for" substituted. We shall, probably, be told that this is a power which is only intended to be used in special circumstances, but the convenience of using drilled men for this work would be so great to the Department that, no donbt, the cases of pressure and necessity will be found to be very numerous, and it will aid greatly in establishing a practice which is not now the law of employing the constabulary for the purpose of doing census work.
  Moved, in line 24, to leave out the word ("in,") and insert the word ("for.") —(The Earl of Powis.)
  THE EARL OF JERSEY: There is no intention on the part of the Loeal Government Board to employ the County Constabulary as regular enumerators, but those words were put in in order to provide for emergencies or pressure, and to
  1724
  meet difficulties in certain cases in which the overseers or relieving officers could not be got to act as enumerators. I wish to assure the noble Lord that the Local Government Board intend to employ the latter in the first instance, and it would only be in very exceptional cases that they would be called upon to employ the parish constables. I believe there are some parishes in which parish constables are not now chosen. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
  Amendment put, and negatived.
  Report of the Amendment to be received to-morrow.

  CENSUS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 227.)
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without amendment; to be read 3a to-morrow.
  CUSTOMS CONSOLIDATION ACT, 1876, AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 152.)
  Read 3a (according to order) with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and to be printed. (No. 248.)
  PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION EX-PENSES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next: (The Lord Privy Seal [E. Cadogan.]) (No. 249.)
  RESERVE FORCES BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 250.)
  TRAMWAYS ORDER IN COUNCIL (IRELAND) (SOUTH CLARE RAILWAYS) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 251.)
PROCEDURE IN LUNACY.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD HERSCHELL,in rising to ask the Lord Chancellor "whether his attention has been called to the letter of Dr. Percy Smith in the British Medical

  1725
  Journal of 19th July, exemplifying the difficulty now frequently experienced in finding Magistrates to undertake the required duties of certifying lunatics, and the hardship thus inflicted on lunatics and their relatives; and whether he will consider what measures can be taken to lessen as far as possible the inconveniences thus arising, "said: My Lords, I have to call the attention of my noble and learned Friend to a somewhat important matter connected with the working of the Lunacy Act. Complaints are made that there is a difficulty experienced in finding a Justice of the Peace, whose act is necessary for the purpose of completing the requirements of the Act in reference to the detention of lunatics. My attention has been called to a particular case where, a lunatic having been admitted into Bethlehem Hospital under an urgency order, it became necessary, in order to comply with the requirements of the Act, and to justify the continued detention of the lunatic, to obtain the necessary documents from a Justice of the Peace. The relations of the lunatic endeavoured to comply with the Act. There were four Justices, I believe, in the district, who were qualified in the manner provided by the Act to act in lunacy matters. Three of them were absent; and the fourth declined to act, and, I believe, suggested a visit to the stipendiary. A visit was made to the stipendiary, and in this particular instance correctly enough he stated he was unable to do what was required of him in the absence of the petitioner. Bat in many cases I am informed the stipendiaries decline to exercise this jurisdiction under the provisions of the Act, which enables them to do so, if, as I understand, it is inconsistent with their ordinary duties. The result is that in cases of unquestioned lunacy the unfortunate relations of the lunatics are driven from one place to another endeavouring to find a Justice of the Peace who can perform the functions required of a Justice under the Act, and a very considerable amount of trouble, annoyance, inconvenience, and difficulty is entailed, which I am quite sure my noble and learned Friend will feel it is desirable to avoid as far as possible in the case of persons who are often sufficiently distressed at being compelled
  1726
  to part with those who are dear to them. I, therefore, desire to ask my noble and learned Friend whether he will inquire into the matter, in order to see what steps can be taken by which those inconveniences can be mitigated as far as possible.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have had information from various quarters that some difficulty has been experienced in obtaining judicial authority for reception orders in cases of lunacy. The Act, which made a very considerable change in the law, has only been in operation for three months, and some difficulty was reasonably to be expected at first. So far as it has arisen from insufficiency in the number of justices oppointed. I have no doubt that at the meetings of justices at Michaelmas the appointments for next year will be made in the light of the experience which has been obtained. The allegation that Stipendiary Magistrates have manifested a disinclination to carry out the duties entrusted to them by the Statute is a serious one, which must necessarily engage the attention of the Home Office. It would be the Home Office which would, in the first instance, make inquiry in that direction, but I think there must be some misunderstanding in the matter. The terms of the Act of Parliament are quite clear. I do not understand my noble and learned Friend to suggest any alteration of the law. The principle of having a Judicial Authority met with such general assent in both Houses of Parliament, and the details were so carefully considered, that it would be unjustifiable to raise any of the questions over again for some time to come. I think your Lordships may rely upon those who have the working out of the Act cast upon them to get over such difficulties as present themselves in the practical and cordial spirit to which we are accustomed in this country. I have no doubt that at the approaching Michaelmas Sessions the Magistrates will take care, as far as in them lies, that if any inconveniences are found, the deficiency will be supplied. My noble and learned Friend has called my attention to the letter which has given occasion for his observations. I cannot part with that letter without saying that the spirit in which it is written is not one which gives it much

  1727
  credit with me. My noble Friend, as well as myself, may perhaps be aimed at, as he and my noble and learned Friend Lord Selborne both had to do with the measure until I took charge of it, and finally passed it through the House. I can only say, as far as I am concerned, the suggestions made by Medical Authorities received the most careful attention. I received a deputation, including Sir Andrew Clark and other eminent persons, particularly in that line of medical? tudy, and their suggestions were not only listened to but many of them adopted at my instance. After the Bill had passed in this House, the Home Secretary also received more than one deputation on the subject. I cannot say, therefore, that this letter comes credited with a spirit of great candour on the part of the writer. But the subject certainly requires attention, and if the facts should turn out as they are represented, undoubtedly they are facts which ought to be dealt with, and I can only say they shall receive any attention I can give to them.

  TRAMWAYS ORDER IN COUNCIL (IRE-LAND) (SOUTH CLARE RAILWAYS) BILL—(No. 251.)
  To be read 2a on Monday next.—(The Lord Privy Seal [E. Cadogan.])
  House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock,