Sitting of 7 August 1890

QUESTIONS.

  SILVER CURRENCIES.
  MR. HOYLE:I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the declared value of the exports for the year 1889 of British and Irish manufactures, machinery, &c., to countries having a silver currency, and on that amount what would be the increase remitted home in sterling owing to the rise in exchange on the basis of the exchangeable value of the rupee having risen from 1s. 4d. to 1s. 7d.?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH:I am not quite clear, from the hon. Member's question, whether he desires to show the exports of British produce and manufacture to countries with a silver currency or with a silver standard, which is not quite the same thing; because gold standard countries, as well as silver standard countries, may have a good deal of silver currency, as in England, France, Germany, and the United States. Taking, however, the
  88
  list of the principal silver-using countries given by the Gold and Silver Commission at page 30 of their final Report, namely, India, China, Japan, Ceylon, Straits Settlements, Mauritius, Mexico, and Central America, I find the exports of British and Irish produce and manufacture amounted to £48,088,857 in 1889. I am unable to give a reply to the second part of the hon. Member's question, as the points involved are mainly matters of opinion and argument.

  INDIAN CIVIL SERVANTS.
  MR. MURPHY:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the principle of the justice of the Civil Servants' claims having been admitted by the Report of the Select Committee on the grievances of the Indian Uncovenanted Service, the Government will now fix the payment of the Indian pensions at a constant uniform rate of 2s. to the rupee in the cases of old servants employed when that was the prevailing rate of exchange for Government transactions with them, as shown in evidence; whether, inasmuch as the Select Committee were precluded from making inquiries into the grievances of servants who claimed to have been inadequately pensioned, including those members of the Public Works Department, retired under resolution of the Government of India, No. 2,079, 31st July, 1879, before they had served the period to qualify for full retiring pensions, the Committee will be re-appointed to inquire into such claims, with a view to the pensions of those gentlemen being equitably settled according to the hopes held out to them when they joined the Service, and according to the agreements, tacit or recorded, entered into by Government; and whether the recommendation of the Select Committee, fixing 1s. 9d. per rupee as the minimum rate for pensions, will be given retrospective effect in the same way as rules, made since the first appointment of those Civil Servants, have been hitherto applied?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,:The answer to the first question of the hon. Member is in the negative. The Secretary of State cannot admit the accuracy of the statement on which the question is founded. The answer to the

  89
  second question is that the question is one which hardly ought to have been put to me. It is not a question for the Secretary of State, who does not appoint Select Committees, but it depends upon the wisdom of the House of Commons, which does. The answer to the third question is in the negative.

  TREATIES OF COMMERCE.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if the several colonies of the British Empire are entitled to enter into negotiations with Foreign Powers to conclude with them independent Treaties of Commerce, or if such matters are left exclusively to the care and conduct of the Imperial Government; and, in the latter case, bearing in mind the declarations to Sir Alexander Galt and the Dominion Government of the late Lord Carnarvon in 1878, and of Lord Kimberley in 1881, which were interpreted by General Laurie, M.P., in the Canadian House of Commons, on the 21st of April last, " to be a Charter to the Colonies, authorising them to have a voice in all Treaties made with Foreign Powers in which colonial interests are concerned," if steps will be taken to ascertain from the representative Governments in Canada, Australasia, and South Africa, and the Chambers of Commerce in India and other British Possessions, if in their views the Treaties now being reviewed by a Government Committee are susceptible of any extension or modification for the advancement of trade between the United Kingdom and the colonies, and between the colonies and Foreign Powers?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIESH. de WORMS,:It has been the practice for the Imperial Government alone to conclude Commercial Treaties of Commerce with Foreign Powers, but on special occasions the representatives of the colonies have been consulted or admitted to take part in the negotiations. In regard to the latter part of the question of the hon. Member, it is not proposed to ascertain the views of representative Governments, or of Chambers of Commerce in India and other British Possessions until the Government have received the Report of the Committee.

  MINE INSPECTORS—MR. T. CADMAN.
  MR. D. THOMAS:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in reference to the superannuation allowance of Mr. Thomas Cadman, late Her Majesty's Inspector of Mines for the South Western District, "The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1872," only created one class of Inspectors; whether in a letter dated 11th October, 1887, from the Home Office to the Treasury, it was stated that certain persons appointed under the Act of 1872
  "Were within the department known as Assistant Inspectors, but were appointed as Inspectors, and exercised the powers of Inspectors, the Statute authorising the appointment only of Inspectors;"
  and further, that the Secretary of State concurred in the view, that to deprive these officers now of the augmentation provided under Section 4 of "The Superannuation Act, 1859," and promised to Inspectors of coal mines in a Treasury Minute of the same year, would operate with severe hardship upon them and their families, and would constitute—
  "A real grievance, of which they might justly complain;"
  if any steps have been taken by the Treasury to obtain the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown as to the legality of with holding from Mr. Cadman the full superannuation allowance promised Inspectors of coal mines in the Treasury Minute of 14th June, 1859; and whether, having regard to the necessity of maintaining good faith with the servants of the State as to superannuation, the Treasury will once more re-consider Mr. Cadman's case?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,:The Act referred to created only one class of Inspectors, and the words specified are correctly quoted from a Home Office letter to the Treasury, dated 11th October, 1887. I have directed that an opinion should be obtained from the Law Officers of the Crown as to the legality of the pension award which has been made in the case of Mr. Cadman. When that opinion is before me I will consider whether it renders necessary any modification of the Treasury decision.

  LIBEL ACTION AT MANCHESTER.
  MR. SCHWANN:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the

  91
  Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the report of a libel action tried at the recent Manchester Assizes before Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams, wherein it was stated that the police had handed over to the plaintiffs in the case a petition against a house which it was alleged or suspected was used for immoral purposes, and if it is customary to treat such communications as privileged; and whether the police exceeded their duty in handing the document to the tenants of the house in question, upon which letter the case was based?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,:I have seen a newspaper report of the trial, and I am informed by the Chief Constable that after the defendants had repeatedly accused the plaintiffs of keeping an immoral house, and had been informed by the police that these accusations were unfounded, they reiterated the charge, and the Superintendent accordingly visited the house himself. The occupiers demanded to know the reason of the visit, and the Superintendent informed them of the letter of complaint alluded to in the question. The police were subpœnaed to produce this letter at the trial. Such communications are usually treated as privileged; but, in the opinion of the Chief Constable, this case was a most exceptional one, as malice was palpably shown; a view which was borne out by the proceedings at the trial. Under these circumstances I do not see that the police exceeded their duty.
  MR. SCHWANN:Can the right hon. Gentleman give his own opinion upon the matter?
  MR. MATTHEWS:No. I must decline to do that.

  COAL MINES REGULATION ACT.
  MR. DONALD CRAWFORD:I beg 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
  92
  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?
  MR. MATTHEWS:I have received a complaint from the Lanarkshire miners that places are not provided for them to prepare their cartridges. The law already forbids miners from resorting to the dangerous practice of making up cartridges in their own homes; and I have pointed out, in reply to the complaint alluded to, that there was no necessity that this practice should be continued; for the law enables the mine-owners to establish workshops where cartridges can be made up, and many such workshops have been established; and there are in Lanarkshire licensed factories for the making up of blasting cartridges; and such cartridges (whether of loose or compressed powder) can also be purchased direct from the manufacturers. I do not think it would be reasonable to propose legislation compelling all colliery owners, or owners of gunpowder stores to provide a workshop in which miners might make up their own cartridges.

  POLICE CONSTABLE MARR.
  MR. SCHWANN:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a police constable named Marr, who, at the Manchester Assizes in December, 1888, was convicted of man slaughter and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment, being at the same time severely censured by the Judge for having perjured himself, has, since his release, been re-admitted into the Force, and is at the present time serving in the D Division of the Manchester City Police, or is on the probation list with the view of being reinstated in the Police Force?
  MR. MATTHEWS:Yes, Sir; I am informed by the Chief Constable that this man, on his release, applied to the Watch Committee for reinstatement in the Force, and they, as I understand, taking into account the recommendation to mercy of the jury, and the strong opinion in his favour expressed by numerous Magistrates, and

  93
  Stipendiary Magistrates, as well as by the Coroner, Mayor, ex-Mayor, and County Court Judge, an opinion which the Watch Committee shared, have agreed to his being taken on as a probationer. It is not the fact that he was censured by the Judge for having perjured himself.

  OUTRAGES IN MACEDONIA.
  MR. SCHWANN:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has had any Report as to the hardships endured by the Christians of the district of Alassonia, in Southern Macedonia, ever since martial law was proclaimed here; whether his attention has been particularly drawn to the case of the seizure a few days ago of 20 Christian notables of Siatista, who were taken bound to the town of Servia, and beaten unmercifully to compel them to reveal the names of those persons who were supposed to harbour brigands; and to the report that some gendarmes thrust a red-hot bayonet into the nose of Nicholas Doukas, a notable, who is dying from the effects of the cruelty and violence shown to him; has he, further, any information of the seizure of some 200 persons belonging to the district of Anaselitza, who were conveyed to the town of the same name, and tortured in order to extract money; and will he make inquiries into these alleged atrocities, and remonstrate, if they prove true, with the Turkish Government?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,:No such information has been received. Inquiry will be made of Her Majesty's Consul General at Salonica.

  ANGLO-FRENCH AGREEMENT.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government has entered into negotiations with France respecting Madagascar; and, if so, whether they will give the House an opportunity of pronouncing a judgment before concluding a Treaty on the subject?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON:The House is aware that France has for some years desired to procure the recognition of her Treaty with Madagascar, which would confer upon her the Protectorate of that
  94
  island. It would not be possible to submit the question of such recognition by Her Majesty's Government to Parliament, but in no case would it be entertained by Her Majesty's Government without full security for the rights of Her Majesty's subjects and religious liberty for all.
  MR. BRYCE:There is a statement in the daily papers this morning as to an Agreement which is said to have been arrived at between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of France with regard to Madagascar, and the area of influence in what is called North Central Africa. Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any information on the subject, or say what truth there is in the statement in the papers?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON:Her Majesty's Government have concluded an agreement with the French Government on African affairs, and that agreement will be communicated to Parliament on Monday.
  MR. S. SMITH:Henceforth are all negotiations with the Hovas to go through France, or without an intermediary?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON:The hon. and gallant Member for South West Lancashire (Colonel Sandys) has a question on the Paper on that subject.
  COLONEL SANDYS:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the case that the "Hovas," who are the dominant race in Madagascar, have hitherto enjoyed, through their Sovereign and Government, the privilege of direct negotiation with the British Government; whether it is now the intention of Her Majesty's Government to yield up this privilege of the Hova people, and to cede this political recognition of British interests in Madagascar to France in return for their conceding certain Treaty rights in the Island of Zanzibar to us; and whether it is the intention of the Foreign Office that for the future the negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Hova Government, that is to say, between England and Madagascar, shall be conducted through the medium only of French officials?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON:The foreign relations of the Hova Government have

  95
  been governed since 1885 by their Treaty with France, which was presented to Parliament in March, 1886. That agreement provided that France should represent Madagascar in all her foreign relations. I have stated that the terms of the agreement with France will be communicated to Parliament on Monday, and I cannot enter into any detailed statement now.
  MR. BRYCE:As this revelation has been made, it will be extremely inconvenient to discuss the Foreign Office Vote in the absence of this agreement.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON:I believe that the Foreign Office Vote is to be brought on to-morrow upon the earnest representations of the hon. Member himself.

  COLONEL FALKLAND WARREN.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR; I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any notification has been received at the Colonial Office of the proposed retirement of Colonel Falkland Warren from the Cyprus Civil Service; and whether, in view of the frequently expressed desire of Her Majesty's Government to reduce the British staff in Cyprus and to curtail the expenses of government in that island, the Secretary of State will consider the advisability of amalgamating the offices of Chief Secretary to Government and Director of Survey at an inclusive salary of £600 per annum, and thereby effecting an immediate saving of £1,200 per annum to the Island Exchequer?
  BARON H. DE WORMS; The retirement of the Chief Secretary to the Cyprus Government has taken place at the instance of Her Majesty's Government, with a view to effecting economies; but as the post of assistant to the Chief Secretary is at the same time to be abolished, it would be impossible to effect the amalgamation of offices suggested by the hon. Member. The changes now made will, however, result in an immediate net saving of about £600 a year.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR; Can the right hon. Gentleman say what change has been made?
  BARON H. DE WORMS; The change has been the abolition of the post of Assistant Secretary.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR:Who does the work?
  BARON H. DE WORMS:The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

  ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT.
  DR. FARQUHARSON:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he expects to be able, before the end of the present Session, to state the terms of his reply to the deputation of the Medical Corporations of the United Kingdom, which recently waited on him with reference to the claims and grievances of the Army Medical Department?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,:I am very doubtful whether the time mentioned will be sufficient to enable us to give full consideration to the representations of the recent deputation.

  PORTUGAL IN EAST AFRICA—DETENTION OF THE CREW OF THE JAMES STEVENSON.
  MR. BUCHANANI beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state whether the crew of the James Stevenson illegally arrested and detained at Quilimane have yet been released?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON:We have not yet heard whether they have been released.

  SWAZILAND.
  MR. BAUMANN:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the words "a joint Government," used by the Secretary of State, mean a joint Protectorate of Swaziland; what jurisdiction either the Queen or the South African Republic can have, under the Foreign Jurisdiction Acts, in an independent country with a Regent; whether the Court of Justice to be established will be presided over by a Dutch or an English Judge, or both; whether the Judge or Judges will be duly qualified lawyers; and whether there will be an appeal from this Court; and, if so, to what tribunal?
  BARON H. DE WORMS:Joint Government does not mean a joint Protectorate. The Government, which is only over the white settlers, will, be jointly administered by the Represen-

  97
  tatives of Swaziland, England, and the South African Republic acting together. With regard to the second paragraph of the question, there is no such jurisdiction. The jurisdiction is that of the Swazi Regent, and the powers to the joint Government will be given by the Regent. The nationality of the Judge—or of the Judges if more than one are appointed—will be decided when the time comes for selecting them. It may be assumed that the Judges will be qualified lawyers. The Court will be the Chief Court of Swaziland, and no appeal will lie to the Court of any other country.

  THE WELLINGTON BARRACKS SHOOTING CASE.
  MR. WEBB:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the recent shooting at an innocent person by a sentry at Wellington Barracks, and bearing in mind the fact that many Members of this House, besides numbers of the general public, have to pass along Birdcage Walk at all hours of the night, he will consider the propriety of directing that under normal circumstances ball cartridge should not be served out to the sentries at Wellington Barracks?
  MR. E. STANHOPE:The matter is primarily one for the consideration of the Military Authorities, to whom I have referred the question.
  MR. MAC NEILL:Why did this man have ball cartridge at all? It is proved that he had six rounds.
  MR. E. STANHOPE:That is the very question asked by the hon. Gentleman, and it is the question that I have referred to the Military Authorities.
  SIR W. LAWSON:Is it the custom to serve out ball cartridge to sentries in time of peace?
  MR. E. STANHOPE:Yes, Sir, it is; and I have asked the Military Authorities to consider whether it is necessary to continue it for the public service.

  GUNBOATS FOR THE ZAMBESI.
  MR. BUCHANAN:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the two river gunboats for the Zambesi and Shiré are still at Zanzibar; and whether they will soon be sent on to their destination, that
  98
  free communication may be maintained and protection given to the transit of mails, goods, and travellers, between the coast and the British settlements in the Shiré Highlands and Nyassaland?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON:The gunboats are still at Zanzibar. It has not been decided when they will be forwarded, but the question of freedom of communication in the Zambesi is receiving the attention which its importance deserves.

  EX-POLICE SERGEANT DRUMMOND.
  MR. CAUSTON:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will return to ex-sergeant Drummond, of the M Division of the Metropolitan Police, any documents that he may have received from him, either directly or indirectly, in connection with the charges-made against him, and which resulted on 27th June, 1887, in his being reduced in rank; and whether he will allow the solicitor of Drummond to have a copy of the letter of complaint made against him by Mr. Simmonds?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,:The only documents still in the possession of the Home Office, and which have not been returned to Drummond, are petitions and statements by him which have been registered as official documents, and it would be contrary to practice to return them; but copies will be furnished to Drummond's solicitor at his expense if he desires it. The letter of complaint is not at the Home Office, but with the Commissioner of Police, who has been advised that he should adhere to the general rule, and should not disclose communications of that nature.

  RAILROAD TO KOSI BAY.
  MR. LAWRENCE:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the power of the Transvaal to acquire concessions in Amatonga is confined strictly to the right of way for a railroad to Kosi Bay, or will permit it to acquire lands for purposes of re-sale by concessionaires of railway; if the latter, whether any, and what, limits of purchase are provided for; and whether

  99
  such lands are to be subject to Transvaal or English jurisdiction?
  BARON H. DE WORMS:It is not contemplated that by the Treaty with the Queen Zambili, the terms of which are to be approved by Her Majesty's Government as provided by Article IV of the Convention of 1884, more land is to be acquired than is substantially required for the service of the railway, including strips of land on each side. The contingency contemplated by my hon. Friend does not appear to arise. The lands would be subject to Transvaal jurisdiction, but rights of crossing are preserved.

  SIERRA LEONE.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if there is any truth in the report that the Government have entered into negotiations with France for giving up Sierra Leone?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON:There is no idea of any such cession. On the contrary, last year a delimitation took place between the British and French territories in that region.

  NEWFOUNDLAND.
  MR. GOURLEY:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any and what arrangements have been arrived at with the Newfoundland delegates, regarding the Anglo-French partnership and fishery disputes; whether the modus vivendi regarding lobster fisheries is to be permanent; and whether the Bait Act is to be repealed, or a new arrangement entered into, similar to that signed at Paris on 14th November, 1881?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON:1. No arrangement has yet been come to. 2. No; the modus vivendi is for this season only. 3. There is no intention of repealing the Bait Act, so far as Her Majesty's Government are aware. It is impossible to say at present what the nature of any future arrangement may be.

  THE JEWS IN RUSSIA.
  MR. S. SMITH:I beg to ask whether the Government can give the House any information respecting the Jews in Russia?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON:I am able to say that Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg has reported that the Russian Government deny emphatically the truth of the statements which have appeared in the Times on this subject.

  DUBLIN SCIENCE AND ART BUILDINGS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state the names of all the firms who were privately asked to tender for lighting by electricity the new Science and Art buildings in Dublin, giving the amounts of each tender respectively, and say which of them, if any, are manufacturers of electrical plant; and whether, before closing the contract, he will require the Messrs. Edmundson to give a preference to an Irish firm for the execution of the work?
  MR. JACKSON:Four firms were invited to tender for lighting the new Science and Art buildings in Dublin by electricity, namely, Messrs. Siemens Brothers and Co., Messrs. Johnson and Phillips, Messrs. Edmundson and Co., and the Brush Company; and tenders were received from the three first-named. I am not able to state to what extent any of the firms are manufacturers of electrical plant. Messrs. Edmundson's tender for £8,375, being the lowest, was accepted; the contract with them contains no stipulation as to giving a preference to any firm.

  POSTAL ACCOMMODATION IN WEXFORD.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND:I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that great inconvenience is caused to the people in and around Clondaw, County Wexford, through defective postal accommodation, owing to the fact that, under the present arrangement, letters for the district are brought from Ferns, five miles distant, and that the letters of persons who do not happen to meet the postman are left with a local shopkeeper, who keeps them only to oblige his neighbours, and who is not responsible for their safety; and that, in consequence of the risk attaching to this arrangement, many people who expect communications of importance prefer to go to Enniscorthy or Ferns, four or five miles distant; whether he is aware

  101
  that the district round Clondaw is very populous, and that increased facilities would probably increase postal business to such an extent as to more than counterbalance the outlay required in order to make adequate accommodation; whether it is a fact that adequate postal accommodation could be provided for about £6 or £7 annually; and whether, under the circumstances, a Post Office will be established at Clondaw?
  A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir HERBERT MAXWELL,:In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that the official delivery in the neighbourhood of Clondaw has quite recently been extended, and it is now as comprehensive as the circumstances will allow. The question of opening a Post Office at Clondaw has been carefully considered, but the letters which would be left at such an office number only six or seven a day, and the further expenditure involved in establishing a Post Office would not be warranted.

  MR. J. POWELL AND THE MIDLAND TRIBUNE.
  MR. MOLLOY:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the police have, for the third time, commenced a prosecution against Mr. John Powell, editor of the Midland Tribune, for inserting in his journal reports of meetings and other matter ordinarily inserted in newspapers; whether Mr. Powell was imprisoned in 1888 for two months, with the result that Mr. Powell lost the sight of one eye, besides permanent injury to his health; whether this same gentleman was again imprisoned in 1889, with the result that this imprisonment again injured his health, causing severe spitting of blood, and to such an extent that upon the prison doctor's certificate he was dismissed before the expiration of the term; and whether the Chief Secretary will use his influence to put an end to this persecution?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,:I am informed that the facts are not accurately represented in the question. Mr. Powell was not in prison in 1888. He was committed to Tullamore Prison in January, 1889, for seven days for contempt of Court, and in April, 1889, for two months for intimidation, not con-
  102
  tained in matter ordinarily inserted in a newspaper, but in leading articles in two successive issues of his paper. The medical officer of the prison reports that neither his health nor his eyesight was in any way injured by imprisonment, but, on the contrary, his general health was better on his discharge from prison than it had been on committal, he being naturally a delicate man, and he gained in weight during imprisonment. In August, 1889, he was brought before the Magistrates, charged with unlawfully inciting in a sub-leading article of the paper, persons to use violence and intimidation to others, and required to show cause why he should not find sureties for his future good behaviour. He was ordered by the Magistrates to give such surety, but declined to do so, electing to go to prison for three months in default. During that imprisonment he had a slight attack of blood-spitting. He was subsequently discharged from custody on the recommendation of the Medical Officer.

  IRISH CONSTABULARY FORCE FUND.
  MR. SEXTON:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of 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, 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. A. J. BALFOUR:I shall be obliged if the hon. Member will put off the question until to-morrow.

  DUBLIN POST OFFICE.
  DR. FITZGERALD:I beg to ask the Postmaster General if it is true that a certain number of Provincial Clerks-in-charge-ships were allowed to the Dublin Post Office by the late Mr. Fawcett; if these appointments have invariably been filled from the sorting office; what reason is assigned for not giving a proportionate share of these appointments to the telegraph branch; why such vacancies as Inspecting Telegraphists have not been offered

  103
  to the Dublin Telegraph Office clerks; and if, considering the stagnation of promotion in the Dublin Telegraph Office, he will take steps to insure that such sources of promotion will in future be offered to officers in this branch of the Service?
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL:No record can be found of Mr. Fawcett having assigned any appointments as Provincial Clerks-in-Charge to the Dublin Post Office; and as regards the other matter referred to by the hon. Member, time has not admitted of inquiry being made.

  THE IRISH MAILS.
  MR. SEXTON:I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the mails to Belfast and the North of Ireland, viâ Holyhead, due in Belfast before noon, were hours late three days last week, on the first occasion being delivered after 2 o'clock, on the second, in some parts of Belfast, after 4 o'clock, and on the third occasion, Saturday last, after 2 o'clock, when all the banks were closed, and the banking of remittances by merchants was, in consequence, suspended from Friday to Tuesday, Monday being a Bank Holiday; whether he is aware that on all these occasions the mails conveyed by the Stranraer route were delivered without delay; whether the President and Secretary of the Belfast Chamber of Commerce have represented that great dissatisfaction exists in Belfast on the subject of the mail service viâ Holyhead; whether, with regard to the case laid before him by a deputation from Ulster, on the 24th of June last, he has applied to the companies for estimates; and, if so, when, and whether any, and, if so, what, replies have been received; and whether, in view of the urgency of the case, the decision upon it can be announced?
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL:In reply to the questions of the hon. Member for West Belfast and the hon. Member for South Londonderry, I beg to state that the Post Office is aware that complaints have been made by the Belfast Chamber of Commerce of the late arrivals of the English mails viâ Holyhead at Belfast, in consequence of fogs and pressure of holiday traffic. The service on the whole, however, is performed with admirable regularity. No com-
  104
  plaint has been received of delays by the Stranraer route. The Postmaster General has not called for the estimates alluded to, but will consider any offer which may be made to him for the conveyance of mails according to a fixed time table by the Stranraer route.
  MR. SEXTON:Did not the Postmaster General declare in the Debate upon the Post Office Estimates that he had not yet received estimates from the Railway Companies? Although a deputation waited upon the right hon. Gentleman six weeks' ago, it would appear that no application has yet been made to the Railway Companies. What is the cause of the delay?
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL:I am afraid that I can offer no further explanation. My responsibility in the matter ends with the answer I have given.

  EVICTIONS ON BLASKET ISLANDS.
  MR. SEXTON:I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland what was the legal character of the seizure of boats belonging to fishermen of the Blasket Islands by the party conveyed from the mainland in the gunboat Britomart?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,:The legality of the seizure would depend upon the facts of the case, in regard to which I can give no opinion,
  MR. SEXTON:Before the Irish Government made a requisition for a Queen's ship to make a seizure of this kind did they take any steps to ascertain whether the seizure was legal, because there is at this moment a Statute in existence protecting implements of trade from seizure. It is too late to go back upon the incident which has already occurred, but I want to know if the Government will ever again consent to ask for a Queen's ship for the purpose of making a seizure of this kind?
  MR. MADDEN:The Government could not possibly have any knowledge at the time they sanctioned the use of the ship of the character of the seizure. If there has been any illegal act the persons aggrieved have their remedy.
  MR. SEXTON:That would mean these poor fishermen?
  MR. MADDEN:Yes; any person whose goods have been illegally seized would have a remedy at law.
  MR. SEXTON:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the gunboat Britomart was recently employed to convey the agents and servants of an Irish landlord to and from the Blasket Islands, and to bring away from the islands certain boats, the property of fishermen there, which had been seized in satisfaction for rent; and whether such use of a Queen's ship is sanctioned?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. FORWOOD,:The First Lord of the Admiralty is aware that the Britomart was recently employed in conveying the officers of the civil power holding writs from the Court of Queen's Bench against the tenants of Blasket Islands, who, as I am informed, are occupied as farmers as well as fishermen. The Sheriff applied for the use of the gunboat in the absence of any other means of communication, and it was sanctioned. The boats were, it is understood, seized by the Sheriff's officers for the six years' rent due, as being more readily moved from the island than cattle, and more easily returned to the owners in the event of a settlement. A settlement has since been made, and the boats returned to the owners. They were towed away from the island by the gunboat, at the request of the Sheriff's officers in whose charge they were.
  MR. SEXTON:The hon. Gentleman has not replied to my question, but has simply given a narrative of the facts. I want to know whether the agents and servants of an Irish landlord were conveyed to and from the Blasket Island in one of Her Majesty's ships, and whether the use of a Queen's ship for such a purpose is sanctioned by the Admiralty?
  MR. FORWOOD:I believe that the persons who were engaged in the execution of a decree were conveyed to and from the Blasket Island by the Britomart, and that she towed the boats from the island.
  MR. SEXTON:Is there any precedent for such a use of a Queen's ship?
  MR. FORWOOD:If the hon. Member will give notice of the question I will have inquiries made.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON:Is it not the fact that the nets of these poor fishermen were taken on board the gunboat, and that the sailors admitted
  106
  that the task allotted to them was a very disagreeable one?
  MR. FORWOOD:If the hon. Member desires, I will make further inquiry.

  THE POTATO BLIGHT.
  MR. WEBB:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the potato blight is spreading in the county of Waterford, as well as in other parts of Ireland, as already reported; and whether the Government is fully alive to the necessity of making preparations for meeting possible distress consequent thereupon?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:It appears from local official inquiries that while the earlier crop of potatoes in the county Waterford will, owing to the bad weather experienced in the commencement of the year, be deficient in yield, the later crop, of which the champion potato forms by far the greater portion, is still ripening, and if the improvement in the weather continues there will be no ground to apprehend a scarcity in the coming winter. There would be no difficulty in meeting any exceptional distress if such arose, which, however, the Government are glad to say they do not at present anticipate.
  MR. SEXTON:Have any Reports been laid on the Table?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:No, Sir; I do not think it will be possible to lay the confidential Reports of the Local Government Board upon the Table.
  MR. SEXTON:What can there be of so confidential a character in a Report as to whether the potato blight exists or not, that it is considered necessary to suppress it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:That is not the point. If it were to become the practice to lay these Reports on the Table it would be necessary to alter the character of the documents themselves. It is not that these particular documents could not be produced, but I must refuse to lay confidential Reports upon the Table.

  KILLYBEGS LIGHT RAILWAY.
  MR. DALTON:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the Gazette Notice which has appeared, announcing that an application has been made for an Order in Council for the Killybegs Light Rail-

  107
  way, whether this application could be heard until an agreement between the Light Railway Company and the Treasury had been concluded; whether such an agreement has been concluded; and whether he will without further delay put the Stranorlar and Glenties Light Railway Company in a position to proceed for an Order in Council for that much more important and really necessary undertaking?
  MR. JACKSON:The Notice referred to is a necessary Notice preliminary to a hearing. The case mentioned is being carefully considered, and I understand that negotiations are going on.

  WRITING INKS IN IRISH PUBLIC OFFICES.
  MR. MURPHY:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the writing inks used in public offices in Ireland are supplied from England through Her Majesty's Stationery Office; whether he is aware that excellent writing inks are manufactured in Ireland, which are being used by the National Board of Education to their entire satisfaction for the last seven years; whether application was made by a Dublin manufacturer to Her Majesty's Stationery Office for a portion of the contract for ink, offering to supply it of as good quality and at a lower price than it was costing the Stationery Department; why was this application not entertained; and will Irish manufacturers in future get an opportunity of contracting for at least the supply of ink used in Government Departments in Ireland?
  MR. JACKSON:The ink used in public offices in Ireland is supplied from the Stationery Office. Tenders for the supply of ink were called for in August, 1889, and the contract (which was taken by a London firm) came into operation on the 1st January, 1890. On the 12th May, 1890, an application was received from a Dublin manufacturer to supply inks for part of the contract at prices, in some cases higher, in others lower, than those paid under the contract. The application should have been made several months earlier; and during the continuance of the present contract it cannot be entertained.
  MR. MURPHY:Is there any objection to having a separate tender for Ireland?
  MR. JACKSON:I can understand that a sub-division of tenders might increase the cost. At the same time, I see no objection to any Irish or Dublin manufacturer, who is competent to give an adequate supply of the proper quality, being included in the list of persons who may tender.

  MILITARY INSUBORDINATION.
  SIR S. NORTHCOTE:I wish to ask whether the Government have any information with regard to the reported occurrence of military insubordination among the Artillery at Topsham?
  MR. E. STANHOPE:My attention has been directed to the occurrence, and I have called for a Report, but up to the time when I left the War Office to come here no reply had been received?

  ATTACK ON CATHOLIC EXCURSIONISTS.
  MR. SEXTON:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary if he is aware that as 800 Catholics, men, women, and children, were about to leave Belfast yesterday morning on an excursion on board the steamship Victoria, a murderous attack was made upon them by a body of workmen, who threw iron bolts by hand and by sling as missiles, and that some of the women and children were injured, one of them, a boy, very severely?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:I have received information of the attack, and I am glad to say the most serious injury is a scalp wound on a little boy, which is not of a dangerous character. The proceeding was very disgraceful, and every effort would be made to bring the guilty parties to justice.
  MR. SEXTON:I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Have any arrests been made, and what steps will be taken in the matter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:I can give no further information.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR W. BARTTELOT:May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury when it is probable that the Army Estimates will be taken?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,:I hope to be able to take both the Army and Navy Estimates to-morrow.
  MR. SEXTON:What steps will be taken on the part of the Government to keep faith with the Irish Members in reference to the Dublin Corporation Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:When the Bill comes back to this House I propose to move the re-introduction of the clauses struck out in the other House.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER:I desire to put two questions to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House with regard to public business. If it is the general desire that the Session should, if possible, be brought to a close not later than Saturday week, I desire to ask what is the last day on which Supply must close, in order to secure that desirable consummation. I also wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman what course the Government intend to take in respect of the 40 Bills of private Members which at present stand upon the Order Book? The Government have now appropriated all the time of the House, and without their consent it is impossible for any one of these Bills to be brought on. It would be a convenience to hon. Members to know that they have been decently interred.
  MR. W. H. SMITH:In answer to the first question of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I have to say that if the ordinary course be followed it would be necessary that Supply should close on Saturday, in order that the prorogation should take place on the following Saturday. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that after Supply is closed the Resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means must be reported, and the Appropriation Bill could not be brought in until the following Monday. That Bill would take, in the ordinary course, four days in this House before it could be sent to the Upper House, and two days would be necessary to pass it through that House. I believe it would be convenient to the House that the sitting on Saturday should not be held subject to the Wednesday Rule, and that I should move that after the Government business is concluded the Speaker should adjourn the House without Question put. In answer to the question as to private Members' Bills, the right hon. Gentleman is aware that, although the
  110
  Government have taken the whole time of the House, there remains during the progress of the Appropriation Bill through the House a certain amount of time at the disposal of private Members, which if they think fit, the Government would arrange so as to enable them to forward their own measures. There are one or two bills of private Members which the Government would wish to see passed, but, as a general rule, undoubtedly, the Government would discourage the further progress of Bills which, in the great majority of cases, cannot possibly be passed into law this year. I would appeal to hon. Members in charge of Bills not to put their Colleagues in this House to the inconvenience of remaining longer than is absolutely necessary.
  MR. LABOUCHERE:May I ask whether 60 or 70 Votes in the Estimates are to be taken on Saturday and whether the House is to sit until those Votes are taken?
  MR. W. H. SMITH:I answered the question addressed to me by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. Fowler) in the spirit in which it was put. The right hon. Gentleman asked me on what day it would be necessary for Supply to be closed if the prorogation was to take place on August 16, and I answered that question. The Government have indicated their plan, and it is for the House to consider what course it will be necessary to take.

  THE VATICAN.
  MR. SUMMERS:Will the Government consent to give the Return on the Paper—an Address for a Return of all Papers relating to the Special Mission of the Duke of Norfolk to the Vatican, and of all correspondence or communications that passed between the Duke of Norfolk on the one hand, and the Vatican or the British Government on the other, either before, during, or after the period embraced by the said Mission, in regard to the relations of the Holy See with Ireland, or with any other portion of the British Empire.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON:The Government cannot consent to the Address in the altered form in which it appears. They would have consented to it in the form in which it appeared on the Paper

  111
  on Tuesday last. The hon. Member has since altered it, and we cannot consent to it for the reason that there are no such Papers, and there has been no such Mission.

  LOCAL TAXATION LICENCES, 1889–90.
  Return ordered—
  "Of the amount received in respect of each Administrative County and County Borough in England and Wales for Local Taxation Licence Duties and Penalties, under the Act 51 and 52 Vic. c. 41, in the year ended 31st March, 1890."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Return presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 358.]

  HOLYHEAD HARBOUR.
  Copy ordered—
  "Of Correspondence between the Board of Trade, the Postmaster General, and the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company upon the subject of the present system of shipping and landing mails and baggage at Holyhead."—(Sir Michael Hicks Beach.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 361.]

  STATUTE LAW REVISION (No. 2) BILL [LORDS].—(No. 405.)
  Reported from Select Committee, without Amendment.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 359.]
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 359.]
  Bill re-committed to a Committee of the whole House for to-morrow.

  TRADES (HOURS OF WORK).
  Return ordered—
  "Showing the average number of hours worked as a week's work in the chief trade centres by the following industries in the years 1850, 1860, 1870, 1880, and 1890:—Agricultural and Dock Labourers; Bakers; Building Trades; Cabinet Making Trades; Chemical Workers; Cigar and Tobacco Trades; Clothing Trades; Coach Making; Engineering Trades; Glass Trades; Manufactured Iron Trade; Mining; Pottery Trades; Printing and Bookbinding; Railway Employés; Shipbuilding Trades; Textile Trades."—(Mr. Broadhurst.)

  CUSTODY OF CHILDREN BILL [LORDS].
  Bill read the first time; to be read a second time upon Saturday, and to be printed. [Bill 410.]

  PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION.
  Return ordered—
  "For each of the ten years ending the 31st day of August, 1890, of—

  1. The number of Petitions for Private Bills deposited in the Private Bill Office;

  2. The number of Private Bills read a first time in the House of Commons;

  3. The number of Private Bills first considered in the House of Lords under Standing Order 79;

  4. The number of Private Bills first considered in the House of Lords under Standing Order 79, brought from the Lords.

  5. The number of Private Bill (Estate, &c.) originated in and brought from the Lords;

  6. The number of Private Bills decided upon by Committees on Opposed Bills;

  7. The number of Private Bills treated as Unopposed and referred to the Chairman of Ways and Means.

  8. The number of Private Bills that received the Royal Assent;

  distinguishing in all cases between Bills which affected England, and Bills which affected Scotland, and Bills which affected Ireland, respectively (in continuance of Parliamentary Paper, No. 396, of Session 2, 1880)."—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

  COAL MINES REGULATION ACT, 1887, (PROSECUTIONS).
  Address for—
  "Return of Prosecutions under 'The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887,' from the commencement of the Act, setting forth—

  1. Date of Trial;

  2. Place of Trial and Court by which Case was tried;

  3. Name of Inspection District;

  4. Initials of name of Person charged;

  5. Description of Person charged, whether Miner, Manager, Agent, Owner, or otherwise;

  6. Offence charged;

  7. Person at whose instance charge was made, whether Inspector, Owner, Agent, Manager, Miner, or otherwise;

  8. Result of Trial, and of Proceedings, it any, on appeal;

  9. Penalty."—(Mr. Donald Crawford.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to Census (Scotland) Bill without Amendment, Companies (Winding-up) Bill, Pharmacy Act (Ireland) (1875) Amendment Bill with Amendments.
  COMPANIES (WINDING UP) BILL.— (No. 283.)
  Lords Amendments to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed.[Bill 411].
  PHARMACY ACT (IRELAND) (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 241.)
  Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 412.]
  FACTORS (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL. (No. 366.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.—(No. 389.)
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL. (No. 403.)

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    MR. BRADLAUGH:I have no wish to detain the House, but will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House and the country whether the Employers' Liability Bill is to be carried on from year to year, or whether a serious attempt will be made next Session to pass it into law? If the 3rd section were entirely dropped, though I regret that the attempt of the Select Committee of 1886 to provide against all injuries, whether or not actionable, has failed, I believe there would be no serious difficulty in passing the Bill through the House, and it would effect an enormous improvement in the law. In the present year, grievous cases have come under my knowledge in which poor men have not been able to get justice owing to the defects in the law. It is a great pity that it has been found impossible to come to some arrangement. It is a bad thing that a Bill should have been repeatedly mentioned in the Queen's Speech and nothing be done, and I hope to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that it is not intended to hang up the Bill from year to year.
    MR. SEXTON:What are the two Private Members' Bills which the Govern-
    114
    ment are desirous of seeing passed into law?
    MR. W. H. SMITH:One of the Bills which the Government desire to see passed is the Intoxicating Liquors (Ireland) Bill. So far as the Government are concerned, they desire to pass the Employers' Liability Bill, and they entertain a hope that it may be possible to do so. The Government do not relinquish the hope that it may be possible next Session to deal with the question, but they cannot enter into any engagement.
    MR. STOREY:The right hon. Gentleman said there were two Private Members' Bills the Government wished to see passed, but he only mentioned one.
    MR. W. H. SMITH:The other is in the House of Lords. As far as I know there are none on the Paper which we desire to see passed except the one I have mentioned.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1890–91.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

    CLASS II.
    1. £16,122 (including a Supplementary sum of £1,874), to complete the sum for the Fishery Board, Scotland.
    MR. DUFF:The Committee now approach this Vote under somewhat unfavourable circumstances. It is not only brought forward at a late period of the Session, but the Export of the Fishery Board has not yet been presented to the House. I think we have just cause to complain of the great delay which has taken place in presenting it. I regret that I feel it my duty to complain of the action of the Fishery Board. For some years after the appointment of the Board they performed their duty in a fairly satisfactory manner, but of late years they have ceased to give satisfaction either to the fishing community or to the public of Scotland. Personally, I think it would have been better for the Government not to have introduced their Bill for the re-constitution of the Board unless they felt that they were able to carry it. It will be in the recollection of hon. Members that

    115
    at the commencement of this year, a deputation waited on Lord Lothian, which I had the honour to introduce, representing the sentiments of the fishing community of Scotland in reference to the disposal of what is known as the surplus herring brand; and the answer which they received was very satisfactory, his Lordship admitting the justice of their claim, and holding out every encouragement that they would get the money they asked for. But what occurred subsequently? I was in Scotland at Easter time, and I found that Mr. Johnston, a member of the Fishery Board, had been going about the country saying that he did not care whether they got the £31,500 or not, because it would not be of much good to them; that what they wanted was £2,000,000 or £3,000,000. I certainly maintain, however, that the Scotch fishermen have just claims to a larger sum than this £31,500. I trust that, as the Government have approached the subject, they will go on with it, and that they will give to the Fishery Board a representative form and character such as will enable it to win the confidence of the Scotch people. I come now to the sum of £1,500, which is applied to the extension of telegraphs; we were always given to understand that the surplus herring brand fees were to go towards harbour extension. It is very hard on the fishing communities in Scotland that this money should be taken out of the surplus and used for Imperial purposes. I do not deny that the telegraphs are of great importance to the fishing community, but I contend that they are used, as in the recent Naval manœuvres, for Imperial purposes. I moved for a Return on the subject, but I must say that the Return has not been fairly filled up. I have made a calculation which shows that from 1883 to 1888 £4,000 were expended out of the fishery brand upon the extension of telegraphs, while the sum of £1,017 only was expended in harbour extension. Another matter upon which I desire to have information is, the instructions given to officers in command of the fishery cruisers. I am not going to make any complaint against the officers. I believe that, generally speaking, they perform their duty in a very creditable manner, but complaints have reached me on the subject,
    116
    and I think it would be satisfactory, both to the officers and the fishermen, to know from the Government what their duty really is. According to my idea it is the duty of these officers to protect the trawlers, and I put that as a case in regard to which I should like to have some answer from the Lord Advocate. I do not ask him to produce the instructions given to these sea police officers; but I hope he will be able to say that the boats are there for protection, and not merely for ornament. I know it is a difficult matter to look after trawlers, and I have no reason to suppose that these officers are not fulfilling there duty satisfactorily; but I should like some Member of the Government to inform us, a little more in detail than anyone has informed us yet, what are the duties to be performed. When the Local Government Bill was before the House efforts were made to introduce clauses to create Local Authorities for small fishing communities which are not police burghs. These communities have, in several cases, spent considerable sums of money in building piers and harbours; but they have no legal means of imposing dues, whatever dues are paid being voluntarily paid. This is a very hard position. We endeavoured to get an end put to it when the Local Government Bill was before the House, but our efforts were not successful. However, we have received an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the matter is looked upon as one of pressing importance, and will receive the early attention of the Government. I know cases in my own county where a total expenditure of £10,000 or £12,000 has been incurred, and where the fishermen themselves have raised £4,000 or £5,000, but where there is no means of imposing dues. No doubt the power of levying dues on boats entering the harbour might be obtained by means of Provisional Orders; but Provisional Orders are very expensive things, and there is no reason why these small communities should be put to such expense when the mischief might be remedied by legislation. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will admit the truth of that proposition, and that the Government will turn their attention to this matter early next Session. These small communities have no Local Authorities, and, therefore, if

    117
    they want to get a loan from the Public Works Loan Commissioners there is no one they can get to deal with that body, who are only empowered to deal with Local Authorities. There is another matter that has been frequently brought before the Goverment, and that is that nothing has yet been done to facilitate fishermen obtaining titles for their houses.
    THE CHAIRMAN:The hon. Member is now going wide of the Vote before the Committee. The point he is alluding to has no relation to the Fishery Board.
    MR. DUFF:The Fishery Board Report dealt with the subject, Sir; but I will only say with regard to it, that I hope it will receive the attention of the Government. I will not continue my remarks any further. I think the Government have shown, by what they have done on the West coast, that they have some sympathy with the fishermen. I give them credit for philanthropic motives, but I must say they have been more philanthropic than successful. I do not think they have done much good. So far as the district I represent is concerned they have done nothing whatever to benefit the condition of the fishing, but I sincerely hope that early next Session they will give attention to some of the points I have mentioned.
    MR. BARCLAY:This Vote has been looked forward to with a great deal of interest by the fishermen on the East coast of Scotland. I very much regret that the Government have not been able to bring forward a Bill for the re-constitution of the Fishery Board. During the last few years there has been a great scarcity of bait on the East coast, and the fishermen have been looking forward with hope to the adoption of the valuable and practical recommendations of the Departmental Commission which sat on this subject under the Presidency of the Member for Berwick. The case of the fishermen was that the mussel beds are not sufficiently protected, that insufficient attention is given to the cultivation of mussels, and that the price of bait is consequently extremely high. I have heard of cases in which the value of the fish caught by the fisherman has very little exceeded the price paid for the bait. I do not think it would require
    118
    any large grant of money to remedy this state of things. What is wanted is a responsible body, aided by a grant of public money, to initiate the fishermen into the methods of cultivating bait, and who will be responsible for the protection of the beds. If that were done I believe it would be attended with such satisfactory results that the money advanced would ultimately be repaid. I regret the tone in which the hon. Member for Banffshire referred to the Fishery Board and to Mr. Johnston. In connection with the Fishery Board Mr. Johnston and his colleague have rendered valuable service to the fishermen. They have gone to the Continent and witnessed the methods of fish curing practised in foreign countries, and they have given the benefits of their views and conclusions to the fishermen of Scotland. As regards the particular matter to which my hon. Friend referred, I contend that if Mr. Johnston erred at all it was on the side of zeal for the fishing interests, because he believed that Scotland was entitled to a far larger sum than £31,500 out of the surplus herring brand. I hardly think that Mr. Johnston was correctly reported in the speeches that he made. The present Fishery Board is a great improvement on the previous one, and, although it is not equal to the expectations I had formed of it, I do not think the blame lies with the present Government. It lies, I think, further back. But let us hope that the Government will bring forward a measure early next Session which will provide us with a satisfactory Board, and also give us a sum of money for the purpose of benefiting the Scotch fisheries. The money we at present receive is altogether inadequate, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been in the House I should have ventured to appeal to him to extend the grant. The small sum we have received has been, so far, well and judiciously applied. Steps have been taken in the direction of making scientific investigations, but it is impossible to expect a large amount of scientific work to be done, seeing that the Scientific Department of the Board receives no remuneration. It is not to be expected that that amount of time can be devoted to the work which the necessities of the case demand. From the example of other countries, I think

    119
    a great deal ought to be done in the way of cultivating fish in Scotland, especially the mussel. It is not money so much as intelligence that is required; and I hope the Government will bear this in mind, and will endeavour to secure the services of some scientific men who will devote a considerable amount of time to the work. Another thing in connection with which there is a good deal of excitement and irritation amongst the fishermen, is the police of the sea. Acts have been passed in this House for the purpose of excluding trawlers from within three miles from the coast, and a Bill has been passed this Session largely increasing the penalties, but what is wanted is that the police of the seas shall be more vigorously administered. Trawlers, in the absence of the police boats, frequently come within the three mile limit, and do great damage, and I think steps should be taken to render this impossible. This Vote is altogether inadequate, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer should see his way to spend at least £5,000 on improving the Scotch fisheries. I think my hon. Friend has largely over-estimated the expense of Provisional Orders. If there is no opposition—and I think there will be none in this case—a Provisional Order could be obtained for £130 or £150. I obtained a Provisional Order for a small harbour on the coast of Forfarshire two years ago, and I think the figure I have named would be ample. I hope the Government will not fail to bring forward the new Fishery Bill at an early period next Ssssion, and that they will give ample power to the Fishery Board, particularly with a view to the cultivation and preservation of mussels.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSON:I think all will acknowledge that the Scotch Fishery Board, so far as it is able, endeavours to do its best for the interests committed to its charge. There are one or two points to which I wish to draw the attention of the Committee in connection with the Vote. Constant complaints have been made by fishermen in Mid Lothian that trawling is not sufficiently watched, especially during the night time, and that trawlers poach on waters which are supposed to be protected. I think it will be realised that one ship cannot protect the whole of the coast nominally placed under the pro-
    120
    tection of the cruisers, and that it would be well to add another cruiser to the Service. I recently suggested to the Mid Lothian fishermen that they should petition in favonr of an additional cruiser; but they declined to do so, because they said that unless there was on board the cruiser some local man who knew the coast and the habits of the trawlers, the Service would not be efficiently conducted, and no benefit would be obtained from the expenditure. I have no doubt the captains of the cruisers do the best they can, but the complaints are constant, and I believe that until some local man who knows the coast is put on board the cruisers, the fishermen will not be content with the protection afforded them. I sincerely hope the Government will realise that some further sum should be allowed in the form of a harbour grant. With respect to the herring brand surplus, it has been the cause of great discontent among fishermen that no money has been received by them for the improvement of Fishery Harbours out of that surplus. The example of other countriesis, certainly, worth paying some attention to. I see that in France £30,000 has been spent by the Government on harbours within the last 50 years, and I think some further attention might be given to the wants of the poorer localities in regard to the fishery accommodation in Scotland. I hope we shall have some assurance from the Lord Advocate that next year a Bill will be introduced and carried through on the subject.
    DR. CLARK:I quite agree with what my hon. Friend says about the herring brand fishery surplus. This year we have a surplus of £l,500, and last year there was no surplus at all. If the Treasury acted fairly towards us, and did not charge £300 for a pension, and large sums for stationery and other things, there would be a larger sum to devote to this purpose. I wish the Treasury would treat us with one-tenth of the generosity with which they treat Ireland. I do hope that when the Fishery Board is re-constructed the Chairman will be a practical man, who will devote his entire time to the work. I think it is time that the gentleman at present holding the position should retire on a full pension. He has served his country long and honourably, and if

    121
    pensions ought to be given to anybody he has a good right to one. I am sorry to see that between the scientific element and the practical element on the Board there has been some little trouble, and a very able scientific man who acted as assistant to the scientific member has been discharged. I very much regret that so unwise a step should have been taken with regard to the Jackal. I may say if the First Lord of the Admiralty had been here I would have moved a reduction of the Vote. The noble Lord was asked in this House whether it was the duty of those on board the Jackal to give assistance to the fishing boats when they got grounded, and when they could not get round during gales, and he replied that it was not their duty. We are giving £100 to the Commander of the Jackal, and we are providing £200 a year for the Vigilant. We have a right, under these circumstances, to demand that these vessels should give assistance to the fishing boats when they are in distress. Certainly, if assistance be refused again we shall move the reduction of the Vote, as a protest against such unbecoming conduct.
    MR. H. T. ANSTRUTHER:I would ask the Lord Advocate to be so good as to inquire, with respect to what has been called the police of the sea, if it be not the case that the average speed of the steam trawlers who fish in prohibited waters is higher than that of the cruisers placed there to prevent them from committing offences against the law? I am informed on good authority that this is the case. If so, it is easy to see that no amount of good will, or zeal, or efficiency on the part of those on board the cruisers can prevent them being at a disadvantage in bringing the offenders to justice.
    DR. FARQUHARSON:I have taken great interest in the scientific part of the work of the Fishery Board. That work is extremely valuable, not only in the interest of abstract science, but in the interest of the fishing eommunity generally and of the country at large. It is to be regretted that Professor Cossar Ewart is the only member of the Board who is entirely unremunerated for his services, but it is remarkable to observe how much good work he has done.
    122
    The scientific labours of the Board are not only carried on in Edinburgh, but all along the Scottish coast in connection with researches into the habitats of fish and into the damage done by steam trawling. I wish again to complain of the non-appearance of the Report, and I venture to hope that in future years we will have this Report in our hands while the discussion of these estimates is proceeding, so that those who have an interest in scientific work of the Board should be able to say a word appreciative of that work.
    MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND:My constituents take a very great interest in this matter of the Fishery Board. I am sorry to say that they have come to the conclusion that this is an entirely inadequate scheme; and I think that the want of confidence in the Board on the part of the fishermen is an obstacle to this House framing a scheme. This Fishery Board was first instituted to administer the bounty system. The bounty system has been abolished, but the Board remains; and it is perfectly evident that the machinery created for the purpose of administering the bounty system, now dead, cannot be the one best fitted for carrying out all that pertains to the industry at the present time. I have had occasion more than once to call the attention of the Lord Advocate to the vexatious restraints placed on this industry by antiquated regulations. I have pointed out that the prosecutions of the fish-curers have been a source of very great expense and annoyance, the prosecutions being instituted when the packages were only an infinitesimal fraction short of the standard. The fish curers represent to me the great disadvantage they are put under in the foreign markets by compelling them to put the fish into packages of a certain size. I hope the Government will bring in the promised Bill for the re-constitution of the Fishery Board, and that other matters to which I have referred will not be overlooked.
    MR. MARJORIBANKS:I will not go into the question of the Fishery Board. I think my views on the matter are pretty well known to the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I would rather refer to the work of the Board, and I think that what has been said about the

    123
    scientific work of the Board is exceedingly true. I believe they have done very valuable service, both to the fishery industry and to science generally, by the investigations they have made, and I hope no check will be placed on that useful work. In that connection, however, I think it is rather a pity that the Board are inclined to throw cold water on the work done in the St. Andrews Labatory. I hope they will be induced to make greater use of that very invaluable institution. Another point I wish to raise is the question of police. I do think the Scotch fisheries want to be better policed altogether. They want the regulations better enforced, and it is impossible to do that unless you have a sufficient number of fast cruisers to act as police. It is undoubtedly the fact that the trawlers do constantly evade the restrictions placed upon them and come into territorial waters. I do not think it is possible to enforce these regulations too severely, and I hope that greater attention will be given to this point than in the past. With regard to the question of the Harbour Fund in the hands of the Scotch Fishery Board, it is not very large in amount. Harbour works are, unfortunately, expensive matters, and, therefore, at present the Fishery Board has not the power of doing very much good in this respect. The Board, I believe, maintains that it has not the power to use the funds for the purpose of collateral security for the loans by the Public Works Loans Commissioners. If that is the case, I think it is a very great pity. I believe it would be a very useful way of using the fund at the disposal of the Board to help on works arranged for by the Local Authorities. I hope the right hon. Gentleman may be able to give us encouragement to hope that if the Board has not the power now, it will have the power in the future to use the fund for the purposes of collateral security. Another point is that of the officers of the Fishery Board. Whatever we may say of the Board, we can all join in praising the work of the officers. I think they are an admirable body of public servants who have a great deal of work to do, and who have carried out that work well. These men have had an enormous number of extra duties imposed upon them in recent years, and
    124
    they have had no increase of pay. The Fishery Board officers, as a rule, had originally nothing to do but superintend the mere act of branding the herring. They only required a special knowledge of the method of the white herring cure, and of the make and size of the barrels. But now they have duties of a very much larger and wider description. To some extent they are policemen, and to some extent Magistrates. They really deal with many of the smaller cases of dispute, and settle them to the great satisfaction of the fishermen, and with a great saving of expense to all parties. The Fishery Board officer is besides a collector of statistics, and he has many points of many Acts to administer. I think it very hard that these men should have had no increase of pay given to them for so many years. When I brought this subject before the Government on a previous occasion, I was told that the matter was worthy of consideration, and that the case ought to be attended to and looked upon favourably. But again it is one of those cases where delay has been the order of the day. Whatever may be done with regard to the Fishery Board, the officers will have to be maintained. I hope before another year comes round there will be some amelioration of their condition, and that an addition will be made to their pay.
    COLONEL NOLAN:Whenever I have asked for the prohibition of trawlers in Irish waters, I have been requested to await the result of the experiment in Scotch waters. Now, that experiment has been going on for several years, and I want to know from the Lord Advocate whether he can state that any success has attended it.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,:In reply to the hon. and gallant Member, I have to say, with regard to the experiment of prohibition, that the Act was only passed last Session, and there has not been time to gain information. There is no doubt that the experiment has been successful. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has alluded to various topics. Of course, it is quite proper that Parliamentary attention should be called to them, but it is rather for the Fishery Board to take notice of the suggestions of hon.

    125
    Members than that they should be discussed here. As regards the Report of the Fishery Board, I am sorry that it is not in the hands of hon. Members. I imagine that the cause of the delay is the exceedingly elaborate nature of the Report. There are a variety of duties connected with the duties of the Board, and there are statistics of a very elaborate and instructive character. So far as we are concerned, every effort is made to press on the Report. Various remarks have been made on the Scotch Fishery Board, but I do not think it desirable to say anything discouraging to them during the remaining years of their office. I have no doubt they will take in a good spirit all that has been said with reference to their administration. Reference has been made by several hon. Gentlemen to the position of the Herring Brand Fund. I hope hon. Gentlemen have not failed to observe that the present position of the Herring Brand Fund is greatly improved, in so far as the amount available is concerned. A Departmental Committee was appointed, and their Report led to a re-arrangement of the charges which are put upon the Herring Brand Fund. That is evidenced by the large amount of expenditure in the original estimate, and the considerable amount which appears in the supplementary estimate. The hon. Member for Banffshire did not approve of the amount paid for telegraphs, and says it is really in aid of Imperial expenses, and ought not, therefore, to be part of the system. That is barely accurate. The grant is not in aid of Imperial Funds, for this reason: that the money is paid out of the Herring Brand Fund simply for the benefit of those who are unable to raise the guarantee required by the Post Office. Then it is urged that there is not sufficient assistance given for the increase of fishery harbours, where the local funds are not sufficient for the purpose. I was asked by the Member for Berwickshire for some assurance as to using this money for the purpose of collateral security. I am aware that the debt on harbours has been paid out of the Herring Brand Fund, but this a point of considerable difficulty. I will take note of it, and see that the attention of the proper authorities is called to the subject. The hon. Member for Banffshire called attention
    126
    to the question of instructions to the cruisers. So far as the Jackal is concerned, I will speak with a certain amount of reserve, because it is a Queen's ship, while the Vigilant is under the control of the Fishery Board. Generally speaking, the duties they have to perform are to maintain the Fishery Conventions in the interest of the foreign fishermen and our own fishermen, when the latter were brought into contact with foreigners; to enforce the regulations in regard to fishing; to keep, order where the fishing boats congregate; to prevent offences against the Act of Parliament relating to fisheries; and to aid in the recovery of nets and gear which have been lost or abandoned. I think that is a fair general statement of the duties which fall upon them. The hon. Member put a hypothetical case which he presumed had occurred. But these things are so much questions of special circumstances that I do not think he can base a conclusion on the question of responsibility, either for going or for refusing to go, on special occasions. It would depend largely on the distance which it was necessary to go upon the exigencies of the case, and upon the other duties which fall to be discharged by the boat. Of course, it would be rash on my part if I were to pronounce on the case which the hon. Member has put. Several hon. Gentlemen have described the existing police arrangements on the sea as inefficient. I suppose they will all agree that, given the existing staff, the fullest possible use is made of these two boats, and probably it is true that in a chase with a trawler the cruisers, not having the speed, may be at a disadvantage. But hon. Members must not attach too much importance to that. Under the valuable Anstruther Act the penalties for offences are increased to such an extent as to warrant the hope that the trawlers will take warning not to offend. We have not had time yet to see the full effect of that Act. Then the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire spoke of some prosecutions which he regarded as unnecessary, or which, at all events, might have been dispensed with, for offences in connection with the Herring Brand. The hon. Member has called attention to the subject in Parliament, but I do not think he can complain of such cases recently.
    MR. A. SUTHERLAND:What I wish is that the herring fishermen should be relieved from all anxiety on the subject, and not be liable to interpret rules which they cannot understand.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON:At any rate, it is a number of months since the question was raised, and I gather that nothing has occurred since then which has given rise to anxiety. The hon. Member for Banffshire has asked as to power to borrow on the rates. An answer to that question has already been given by the hon. Member for Forfarshire. I have looked into the question, and I think at present that the only solution of the difficulty which has been described, and which I quite believe has occurred in various parts of the country, is by a Provisional Order. The difficulty or expense of obtaining it depends on the conditions stated by the hon. Member for Forfarshire. If there were no opposition, the expense would be comparatively trifling, and it affords a complete solution of the difficulty. On the other hand, the efforts made to reduce the cost of the Provisional Order by having an inquiry locally would, of course, tend to reduce the expense. I think, however, looking to the existing Statute Law on the subject, the hon. Member has touched on a point where the facilities are not perhaps so complete as would be desirable considering the great importance of the subject. It will be looked into. The right hon. Gentleman has raised the question of the Fishery Board Officers—a subject to which he called attention two years ago. The reason of the delay has not been procrastination. The reason is this: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the whole subject of the expediency of continuing the Herring Brand has been again raised. The question of how the law should be enforced was raised, and the Fishery Board sent an expedition to the Continent, which has resulted, I believe, rather in confirming the opinion that the Fishery Board is efficient. But until the question is decided, more or less one way or the other, it is in vain to consider the salaries of these officers, because they might or might not have duties of a very considerable kind to undertake. But once it is ascertained what their duties will be, the question of their
    128
    salaries may fairly be taken into consideration.
    MR. DUFF:I think the Lord Advocate has replied in a very fair spirit. I quite admit that in this year's Estimates there has been a reduction of the amount to about £6,400, and that it was some years ago £5,000. So far I give the Government credit for that. But when the right hon. Gentleman came to deal with the Telegraph Vote, I do not think the explanation was quite so satisfactory. My complaint was that there was an expenditure of £5,017 on telegraphs for fishery extension, and that out of that sum the Fishery Board had paid about £4,000. Considering that these telegraphs are used for national purposes, I think it is unfair that so large a proportion of the Charge is laid on the Herring Brand Fund. I trust that matter will engage the attention of the Treasury. As to the Jackal being a Queen's ship, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the salary of the commander of that vessel is on the Votes, and we have a right to expect that the instructions given to the Vigilant should be extended to the Jackal. I think the right hon. Gentleman's answer satisfactory, but I should be glad to hear of more stringent instructions being given to the cruisers to afford greater protection. With regard to what fell from the Lord Advocate concerning a Provisional Order, the great objection to that is the expense. So far as my recollection goes, in a Return published of the expenses of Provisional Orders, none was under £160. I do not think the question would be entirely met if they did get a Provisional Order, or that it would constitute a Local Authority able to mortgage the fishery.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSON:I suppose the Lord Advocate will understand that there is discontent with the management of the cruisers. There is the greatest possible discontent with the guardianship of the fisheries, and I am afraid there is some ground for that discontent. I was informed lately that the Admiralty had been applied to for an additional cruiser. I should be glad to know that there is a chance of an additional cruiser being supplied.
    MR. A. SUTHERLAND:In case of telegraphs being granted to a locality,

    129 s
    does it rest with the Secretary for Scotland or the Post Office?
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON:It rests with the Fishery Board. If there is any difficulty about the cruisers not being forthcoming, the proper course would be to apply to the Fishery Board with a view to having the cruisers used to the best advantage.
    MR. T. SUTHERLAND:I have to call attention to the extent to which a trawl fishing to now allowed. A Petition has been submitted to the Town Council and to the Fishery Board on this subject. It states that line fishing has been almost done away with in consequence of the extent to which trawl fishing prevails. I shall be quite satisfied if the Lord Advocate will say that this matter shall be looked into, because I believe permission has been given far too hurriedly by the Fishery Board for beam trawl fishing. I believe that it is only right and fair that a new line of demarcation should be drawn beyond which this mode of fishing should not be permitted.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON:On the question to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, I presume that the Order in respect of the fishery was approved by the Secretary for Scotland.
    MR. T. SUTHERLAND:In the neighbourhood which I represent the line fishermen on this question like Home Rule. We should like our "ain fish guts for our ain sea maws."
    (5.42.) Vote agreed to.
    2. £6,503, to complete the sum for the Board of Supervision for Relief of the Poor, and for Public Health, Scotland.
    DR. FARQUHARSON:I do not wish to go at any length into the constitution of that mysterious body, the Board of Supervision. I find that a salary of £200 is given to the medical officer who is employed occasionally. He is a most excellent man—Dr. Littlejohn, Medical Officer of Health for Edinburgh—but I should think he is fully occupied in other directions, and that he has no time to give to the working of this great and comprehensive machine. A contrast should be drawn between this and the Local Government Board in England, where £13,000 is given for scientific purposes, and for collecting scientific information with a
    130
    view to the prevention of the spread of disease. I would point out that now Local Authorities throughout Scotland have to appoint sanitary officers, and that it is necessary to place the central machinery on a better basis for the purpose of receiving Reports from all over the country.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON:The gentleman to whom the salary of £200 is paid is one of the highest medical authorities in Scotland, and the Board has the advantage of his experience and advice. This is not an appropriate occasion to raise the question of the expenditure of this Board under the Local Government Act, because each county will have to appoint its own Sanitary Officer.
    DR. FARQUHARSON:I do not cast any imputation upon the abilities of Dr. Littlejohn, who is a personal friend of mine. He is a man for whose work I have the highest respect, and I only wish he could get treble the amount for it. My only fear is that he will not have time for the duties imposed upon him by the right hon. Gentleman.
    DR. CLARK:In Ireland you give the chief officer £1,200 a year, and each of his staff £300; and in England you give him £1,200, and the members of his staff £800. You spend £13,000 in England, and about £4,300 in Ireland. In Scotland you only give this £200 a year to the Medical Officers. This is only one of many illustrations of the shabby manner in which you treat Scotland. People talk of the way in which India is exploited, As a matter of fact, the only country exploited is poor Scotland. Matters which in Scotland are paid for out of the local rate, are here met by Parliamentary grants. I hope to-night, now that the Rule is suspended, that the Motion for the appointment of a Committee, which has been put down week after week, will be dealt with, and that we shall get a Committee appointed, and a fair amount of money spent in Scotland. On the whole the present system works in a very unsatisfactory manner, and it would seem that these Boards are created less for the advantage of the public than for the benefit of certain individuals. I hope the Government will see their way to the re-construction of the Scotch Fishery Board in such a

    131
    way as to promote the interests of the fisheries at large.
    Vote agreed to.

    CLASS III.
    3. £87,423, to complete the sum for Law Charges and Courts of Law, Scotland.
    MR. PHILIPPS:I desire to call the attention of the Committee to a circumstance in connection with the prohibition of a public meeting which was to have taken place at Wishaw Cross on the 2nd of June last. It was called by the Wishaw United Temperance Council to consider the licensing clauses of the Local Taxation Bill, and at 25 minutes past 2 on that day the following notice was served on the organizer of the meeting;—
    "Chief Constable's Office,
    Lanark, 2nd June, 1890,
    2.25 p.m.
    "sir,
    "It is my duty to inform you that the Constabulary have received instructions from the Magistrates of the Burgh of Wishaw that the open-air meeting advertised by placard to be held at the Cross, Wishaw, on this day, Monday, 2nd June, 1890, at or about 8 p.m., is prohibited, and must not be held either at the Cross or on or adjacent to the public streets or the burgh. Under the circumstances I shall be glad to receive your assurance that this order of the Magistrates will be strictly complied with, and I have desired the Constabulary Officer who will attend with this letter to ascertain if he can assist you or in any way facilitate whatever arrangements may be necessary to guard against public inconvenience.
    "Believe me, Sir, your obedient servant,
    "WALLACE B. M'HARDY,
    "Com. R.N. and Chief Constable
    "To the Rev. G. Whittet,
    Belhaven Terrace,
    Wishaw."
    In consequence of this notice the meeting was not held at the Cross, but was held in another place, a hall or schoolroom. Now, Sir, Wishaw Cross is not a large place, but meetings are regularly held there every week nearly or quite the whole year round. The Cross is formed by the intersection of two roads. A very small portion of the space has been shut off for building purposes, but even allowing for this, the space left is large enough for any public meeting likely to be held in Wishaw. The roads measure 54½ft., 35ft., 50ft., and 59ft. respectively at the Cross. This is not a very large area,
    132
    but in a small town like Wishaw, where there is not a great deal of wheeled traffic, there is ample room for a meeting, especially when called for 8 o'clock in. the evening, at which time the business traffic is practically over for the day. I should state that this is the first public meeting which has ever been stopped in the Town of Wishaw. I may add that I put a question to the Lord Advocate on this subject some time ago, and, in reply, the Lord Advocate stated that—
    "The Magistrates, who are the elected police Magistrates of the burgh, had no apprehension of disturbance, and that their interference was in no way actuated by the nature or objects of the meeting or the conflicting opinions of any section of the community. They acted solely because the place proposed was a part of the streets where, in their judgment, a large public meeting could not be held without the ordinary traffic of the streets being interfered with, and danger of accident arising."
    Well, in answer to this, I have to say that meetings have always been held at Wishaw Cross, without let or hindrance, and that no disturbance or obstruction has ever taken place, the only ground for magisterial interference being where the Magistrates might apprehend or anticipate disturbance or obstruction. Well, Sir, the Lord Advocate went on to say—
    "The primary object of the intimation was to prevent a meeting being held at this particular place. The Magistrates considered that that was entirely within their discretion."
    It will be seen that the Lord Advocate takes very good care not to make this statement his own. He goes on to say—
    "The place was so narrow that a public meeting held there would obstruct traffic and endanger the lieges. They seemed to have extended the notice to the whole of the streets of Wishaw."
    THE CHAIRMAN:Order, order! I do not see how this can be connected with the Vote before the Committee. Perhaps the hon. Member may be able to explain how he can connect it with the question under discussion?
    MR. PHILIPPS:My contention is this, that the action of the Magistrates was illegal, and that the Lord Advocate has practically justified that illegal action on the part of the Magistrates.
    THE CHAIRMAN:I think that this is quite irregular. The Lord Advocate simply intimated the opinion of the Magistrates. If the action of the

    133
    Magistrates was illegal, there is a way to test that illegality. The Lord Advocate is not responsible for what they did, and cannot be questioned in this matter.
    MR. PHILIPPS:I suppose I should not be in order in pressing the Lord Advocate to give a distinct answer as to what power the Magistrates possessed, and whence they derive that power. But surely I am in order on a question involving the Lord Advocate's salary in discussing the action of the Magistrates with regard to a particular matter which is justified by the Lord Advocate?
    THE CHAIRMAN:You may examine the propriety or impropriety of the action of the Lord Advocate, and if you desire to get from the Lord Advocate an expression of his opinion, I think you may do so.
    MR. PHILIPPS:I desire to ask under what Statute the Magistrates of a police burgh have power to prevent a public meeting being held? As I understand it, the powers of the Magistrates are derived from the Police (Scotland) Act, 1862.
    THE CHAIRMAN:Order, order! The hon. Member cannot argue that question.
    MR. PHILIPPS:But surely I may ask whether there is anything in Section 248 of that Act, giving the Magistrates such a power, and, if so, what it is?
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON:I stated that I understood the Magistrates to proceed on this ground, that they apprehended that a meeting on a subject of this kind was likely to draw a large crowd, and that such a meeting held in a narrow street would cause inconvenience and obstruction. I am not responsible for what the Magistrates have done. They are properly elected persons, and bear the responsibility for their own acts. But my view of the law is this: If the Magistrates had chosen to have waited until the event occurred, and a great crowd had collected, by which the ordinary traffic was stopped, it would have been their duty to remove the people. What the Magistrates did by their proclamation was to let the people know that if the meeting was persisted in they would put a stop to it, inasmuch as it was their duty to keep the streets open. Accordingly they simply gave an intimation through the chief of their police that if the people wished to hold
    134
    a peaceful meeting it would be better to hold it elsewhere than at the Cross. With regard to the power of the Magistrates to proclaim the meeting I entirely agree with what was said by the Home Secretary on that subject.
    MR. PHILIPPS:I contend that in acting as they did the Magistrates exceeded their powers. They might have warned the organisers of the meeting that they could not occupy the whole of the space at the cross roads, and I want to get from the Lord Advocate some information on the question whether in Scotland meetings may or may not be held in the public streets? It seems to me a serious matter to say to those who want to hold meetings in the open air that they shall not be able to do so, and I trust the Lord Advocate will now lay down what he regards as the law on this subject.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON:I stated frankly, but not in lecturing tones, that I considered the terms of the Proclamation were too wide, and when I stated that I assumed it would be understood that the Magistrates might take the hint from a Minister who was speaking with a certain amount of moderation.
    DR. CLARK:I think we may be content with the answer which has just been given by the Lord Advocate, who has told us he thoroughly agrees with the Home Secretary. The Lord Advocate has practically adopted the view that there is a right of public meeting, and that the Magistrates cannot put a stop to public meetings in this fashion, although it would appear that the law is somewhat differently administered in Scotland to what is the case in England. In Scotland no redress can be obtained in such a case as this without the legal assent of the Lord Advocate, while in England no such assent is necessary. I wish to remind the Lord Advocate of an assurance he gave us some little time ago, with regard to the legal rights of those who desire to prevent the polution of Loch Long. It was then understood that proceedings would be taken against those who polluted the water. I hope he will now give the Committee some assurance that the nuisance complained of shall be put a stop to. This matter is of importance to Scotland, because there are many outdoor meetings held in that

    135
    country in connection with mission, temperance, and political work.
    MR. W. A. HUNTER:I have to apologise to the Lord Advocate for bringing forward without notice the matter on which I am about to speak, but my main object is to explain the facts, in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will on Monday be able to give some explanation in regard to them. On the 19th of July a strike of cabmen occurred in Aberdeen. On the following Monday the Magistrates held a meeting and resolved not to issue new licences for any additional cabmen for 24 hours, in the hope that before that period expired the cab proprietors would come to terms with the cabmen. It appears that terms were not come to within that period, and the Magistrates thereupon decided that they would not issue any licences for a week. The consequence of that necessarily was that, the great majority of cabmen having withdrawn from employment, the only cabs that could be driven in the streets were those driven by unlicensed cabmen. It is obvious that the police must have known that these unlicensed men were employed during that seven days, and although the attention of the procurator fiscal was distinctly called to the subject—and it ought to have been under his cognisance without any special call—no attempt was made to prosecute any of these unlicensed drivers. This is a very delicate and very serious matter affecting the administration of justice in Scotland, because in Scotland, unlike England, there are no private prosecutors. The entire power of instituting a prosecution lies with the publicly appointed officer, and it is of the highest importance that he should be above suspicion, and that it should not be possible to say that he has abstained from putting the law into force against these unlicensed drivers with the view of assisting one of two parties to a trade disturbance. These facts have only been brought to my notice by the last post, and I state them with all reserve. I hope the Lord Advocate will, between now and Monday, make inquiries, and that if he finds any neglect on the part of the police to institute these prosecutions he will take some steps to secure that in future the balance of the police will be held evenly.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON:As the hon. Gentleman conjectures, I have no knowledge on the subject, but I will make inquiry, and have no doubt I shall be able to give an answer on Monday. I may tell the House, however, that the matter is rather one for the Burgh Authorities.
    MR. WALLACE:There are one or two points on which I should like to say a few words. There are certain increases on various items which, I think, require explanation. Take, for example, the case of the expenses of the clerk to the Lord Advocate. For years they did not exceed £180, and now they have gone up to £200. Then there is the Vote of expenses for the legal secretary to the Lord Advocate in London. That, too, has gone up in amount, and I should like to know why. I do not grudge any necessary expenditure, but I do think we should know why there is an increase of £50 in this one item. Again, the Vote for writing has gone up from £50 to £80, yet we have no explanation of it. Next there has been for several years an annual charge of £700, which has been paid to the legal secretary for drawing Bills for Scotland. If we get £700 worth of Bills drawn a year, we certainly do not get £700 worth of Acts passed. What is the use of having these Bills drawn if the Acts are not allowed to pass? I should think the average annual value of the legislation we get from Scotland is about 2s. 6d. Last year certainly we came off a little better, but only after a frightful besieging of the First Lord of the Treasury could we extort a promise from him that we should have what was, to a certain extent, a Scotch Session. In that Session we certainly got about half the value of the money we spent for drawing Bills. The next item to which I desire to call attention is that providing for the payments of £80 a year each to four trumpeters. Fancy a charge of £320 for four trumpeters! This is the year 1890, remember that. There ought to be a certain chronological congruity between facts and dates. If the payment had been for bagpipes, I think, considering the national character of the music, my opposition would have been disarmed, and, at all events, it would have been left to an English Member, like the

    137
    senior Member for Northampton, to challenge a Vote of this nature. The trumpeters not only get £80 a year each for the blasts they occasion, but they get more, because there is an item of £16 16s. 4d. for each of them under the head of salaries and allowances from the Consolidated Fund. I think, considering the inflictions which are imposed upon the community by these men, it would have been far more reasonable if their salaries had been reduced by the £16 odd instead of being augmented. Then they receive a uniform once every five years. I do think that that is too bad. I have had experience of these trumpeters, and I know what they can do. I have an early recollection of an event in my youth—a period which I need not connect with any historical or well-known date. At that time I repaired to the nearest Assize town, out of curiosity, to see how justice was administered in the country in which I hoped, in the future, to be able to play a part, public or private. The procession from the place where the Judges stayed to that in which they performed their functions, was a terrible show, to my youthful imagination, and even in my later recollection it was a remarkable scene. The performance of these trumpeters was a frightful performance, if I may be permitted to say so. It was simply appalling, and the only consolation is that it afforded certain relief in some rationalistic doubts which I had entertained about the falling down of the walls of Jericho. One of these trumpeters who gets £80 a year, is also in receipt of a pension of 2s. 6½d. a day, and I say that this is really a misspending of public money in a way for which it is impossible to find an excuse. The money might be much better spent. I do not see what good is done by making these frightful noises in the Assize towns, when the Scotch Judges go there to dispense justice. It is never done in Edinburgh. The Lord Advocate never has a trumpet, unless he blows it himself. There are no trumpeters appointed to the Judges in Edinburgh. I have seen those eminent legal gentlemen walking up the Mound in Edinburgh with no person in front proclaming through any sort of instrument that anyone particular was ascending the declivity. I am glad to see that the First Lord of the Treasury
    138
    has entered the House, because I want him to know that £400 is spent every year in producing useless blasts—blasts which are not only useless but disagreeable and frightful as well. This money had better by far be devoted to endowing a historiographer or an archæologist in Scotland. That would be a useful application of the money. It would be an encouragement to an excellent occupation, but to spend the cash in sending ridiculous individuals to make noises before the Judges when they are not wanted, ought to be condemned. The Judges administer justice in Edinburgh without any trumpeting, and I do not see why they want the trumpeters in Jedburgh, which was always famous for its justice. The people of Jedburgh do not require trumpeters; they only require the hangman. They first hang their criminals, and then they set to and try the case, and administer justice. These are the customs of our native country, and they are well known to the Lord Advocate. I think, if the Judges were asked, most of them would prefer to do away with these trumpeters. I know a great many of the Judges, both present and prospective. Many of them are men of strong and solid common sense. They are sure to be respected, even without trumpeters, and if any one of them still wants the trumpeting, I think he would be found perfectly well able to blow his own trumpet, without requiring any assistance from the country. Now, there is one other point referring to the Lord Advocate, not as a trumpeter, but as an anti-trumpeter. I am anxious to be relieved from the disagreeable duty of discussing it, and the slightest sign from the right hon. and learned Gentleman will make me subside. I think he has, during the last year—unconciously I hope—been in the habit of blowing blasts of ridicule and of disagreeable observations against his native country, and its Representatives in this House. I do not want to enter upon this topic, but I am fully prepared to do so, and I have a hat-full of documents here on this Bench. If the Lord Advocate will only say that we are mistaken in thinking that he regards us, as a whole, as a contemptible set of beings, who are only good for the purpose of being ridiculed at country meetings at which he has to

    139
    make himself pleasant to his own supporters, I shall be satisfied. But he does not offer to do that. He is not willing to let bygones be bygones, and, therefore, I must proceed. I wish to make an appeal in connection with the relationship he seems to be pleased to occupy with regard to the Representatives of Scotland. I do not complain of what he does in this House. He may have prudential reasons for being pleasant to us here. But out of it, I do not think he conducts himself in such a way as to further the success of Scotch business and Scotch influence here. He must know it requires all the power which Scotch Members can command in order to secure a proper acknowledgment of the claims of Scotland in this House, and that any person in a high and well rewarded official position ought to consider it his duty not to weaken, but rather to strengthen, the hold which Scotland may have on the business of this House. Now, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman on all occasions so conduct himself as to promote the claims of the Representatives of Scotland with regard to public business? During the last Recess he went down to Inverness, and, speaking of us, he said that one of the greatest difficulties in the way of Scotch business arose from the unpopularity of Scotch Members in the House of Commons. He continued—
    "It is idle to mince matters, but one of the chief things which make it difficult for a Minister to propose Scotch business is that it entails a torrent of idle talk from the dullest of speakers."
    He went on in other ways to emphasise the same description of his country and its Representatives, and when he was challenged, if I remember rightly, by the right lion. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire, he rather strengthened the cause of complaint by throwing additional ridicule upon us in speaking of the possibilities of a Scotch Parliament. He spoke of it as one of the most dismal prospects that could he seen, because of the dulness, the horribleness, of any such Assembly being created. What I want to ask the Lord Advocate is, whether this continual trumpeting of the ridiculous nature of his country, and of its Parliamentary Representatives especially, will conduce to the forwarding of Scottish business in the House?
    140
    I appeal to the generosity of the right hon. Gentleman. It is all very well for the Lord Advocate, with his Titanic gifts, to bestride our narrow world like a collussus, while we petty men walk under his huge legs. If, while engaged in that humble, if unfortunate occupation, the right hon. Gentleman should sit down upon us when in his way, and squelch us into a political pulp, how can he expect that that will be a mode of making us fitter and better for the promotion of Scottish business? I think that the Lord Advocate should be generous in the exercise of the high gifts which, by his own declaration, he constructively possesses, and tolerant to the unfortunate gifts which, by the same declaration and acknowledgment, the Scottish Members possess. It is all very well to have a giant's power, but it ought not to be used with a giant's strength. The right hon. Gentleman ought to descend to the level of men of poor estate, and remember that the Scottish Members are doing the best they can with the scanty power which nature has bestowed upon them. The right hon. Gentleman ought to do the best he can to screen our defects, and to make apologies for our weaknesses, and to say that, as far as he has been able to observe, the Scottish Representatives are doing the best with the humble opportunities and with the imperfect powers that nature and Parliament have allotted to them. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman's style of speaking of his country and of his countrymen is unworthy of him.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON:The salaries for trumpeters are payable only to certain persons who were appointed before the new arrangement came into operation, but the present arrangement will probably soon pass into abeyance. The allowance for subsistence money of the clerk is regulated by scale, and the reason why the sum is larger in the case of the clerk than in the case of the legal secretary, is due to the clerk's being in town for a longer time during the year than the legal secretary. As to the cost of drafting Bills, no doubt there is a discrepancy between the number of Bills drafted and the number passed into law; but if the hon. Gentleman will lend the Government his aid in making the Bills Acts of

    141
    Parliament, the yield of legislation may be a great deal larger. As to the speech I delivered at Inverness, let me point out that I have already been tried for that speech. One of the Opposition leaders, the right hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Majoribanks) took the earliest opportunity of bringing the question forward on the Address, and the worst passages of that speech were read out. [Mr. WALLACE: Not the worst.] The hon. Gentleman will, therefore, find that if the case has been misconducted against me on the first trial, and on which I was acquitted, the remedy lies, not against me, but against those who represented the hon. Gentleman on that occasion. The right hon. Member for Mid Lothian also took part in the discussion; so that if the case is one which, as treated by the right hon. Member for Berwickshire, miscarried, and after being treated by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian again miscarried, I do not think that I am called upon to make any further defence. The hon. Member has spoken of the forbearance I have received from the Scottish Members. I agree with that observation, and I hope that nothing I have said or may say in future will be inconsistent with the personal good will I have enjoyed from my Scottish Colleagues.
    MR. A. SUTHERLAND:I have only one word to add to what has been said by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Wallace), and I say it rather in explanation of the circumstances under which the Lord Advocate made the speech which I presume I may characterise as an unfortunate speech. It must not be forgotten by my hon. and learned Friend that when the Lord Advocate made that speech his foot was on his native heath, and he was surrounded by the flower of the constitutionalism of the Highlands. Some allowance, therefore, may be made for the exuberance of spirit which the hon. and learned Gentleman displayed on that occasion. Knowing the circumstances, the people of the Highlands have forgotten what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. The senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had occasion to speak in Inverness very shortly after, and he administered to the Lord Advocate a well-merited castigation. The hon.
    142
    Member compared himself to young David who was taking a pebble from the brook to throw at Goliath. The people were satisfied with the efforts of the hon. Member for Northampton. I trust, therefore, that this matter, though it did cause a great deal of friction at the time, will now be forgotten.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSON:I should like some information from the Lord Advocate as to the circumstances under which he has taken no action in regard to the charges made by Mr. J. S. Scott against the right hon. J. H. Macdonald. The case is one which has excited considerable interest and a certain amount of sympathy in my own constituency.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON:The case has been repeatedly considered by myself and my predecessors, and I cannot see any reason to depart from the conclusion arrived at—that there is no ground for any proceedings.
    DR. CLARK:I trust that we shall soon get more money for Scotland, so that important legal functionaries, beginning with the Crown Agent and going down to the poorest Procurator Fiscal, will be placed in a position that they will be independent of private practice. In reference to this matter our complaint was that the English Members do not listen to our arguments, but come in to vote when the bell is rung. The right hon. Gentleman thought the reason was that we were rather dull speakers. Well, no one can say that the right hon. Gentleman himself is a dull speaker. There are few men in this House who have the clearness and eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman, but, by a curious irony of fate, when the right hon. Gentleman came to explain the provisions of the Scotch Police Bill—the only Bill passed this Session with reference to Scotland—all the Benches behind him emptied, and only five Scotch Members and four English Members on his own side remained to listen to his short and able exposition of the measure.
    MR. A. SUTHERLAND:I wish to draw attention to a question in connection with the Procurators Fiscal in the Highlands. When questioned by me recently the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate undertook that the Procurator Fiscal should not undertake any

    143
    duties other than his official duties. I have now to remind the right hon. Gentleman that gentlemen appointed to this position have had to suffer in their incomes on account of the carrying out of this undertaking, and I think it would be well if the right hon. Gentleman would bring his influence to bear in order to secure to Procurators Fiscal the making up of loss of income they have sustained in this matter.
    Vote agreed to.
    4. £26,559, to complete the sum for the Register House, Edinburgh.
    MR. LABOUCHERE:My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) with the approval, I think, of many Scotch Members, pointed out just now that Scotchmen were almost always paid too little for the valuable services they render to the country, and when I questioned the accuracy of this observation my hon. Friend was quite aghast at such heretical notions being entertained by an Englishman. Now, I wish to have some information respecting this Vote. I see, in the first place, that the Keeper of the Records and the Registrar General gets £1,200 per annum. I should like to know who he is, and what he does. A deputy Keeper of the Records gets £600, and a Curator of the Historical Department £600 a year. Then there is a Keeper of the General Registry of Sasines and Hornings. What are Sasines and Hornings? There are six assistant Keepers to look after these Sasines and Hornings. The gentleman who looks after these Hornings gets £1,000 per annum, and I want to know what he and his six assistants do for the money.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON:I am afraid the hon. Member would have to sit out a course of lectures in order to fully understand all these points. A sasine is a title to land. In our country these titles are registered, and we are proud of our system of registration. An enormous number of writings come within the jurisdiction of the Keeper of sasines. His is a highly responsible position, and the security of landed property, as far as admistration goes, is really in his hands, and those of his assistants. As regards hornings, the requisite warrants for carrying out a decree used to be generally described by
    144
    that old-fashioned word. I may say that the whole of this Registry has been recently explored, and I would refer the hon. Member for further particulars to the hon. Gentleman (Dr. Clark) who sits next to him.
    DR. CLARK:I looked into this matter two or three years ago, and my mind was relieved on the subject by finding that this Registry costs us nothing at all, as the expenditure is covered by the fees paid by landlords. A short time ago we were making money out of these sasines and hornings. The Department is being revised now, and I hope the Treasury will, by-and-by, be making £10,000 or £15,000 a year out of the sasines and hornings. The Chief Registrar is also Registrar General, and he performs other functions; but we are practically able to get all the registration work done for nothing.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL:I think this expenditure is fully justified, and that we have one of the best systems of registration in the world. I think we have reason to complain that the Lord Advocate did not defend our system sufficiently. The right hon. Gentleman is a paid officer, and I think it a pity he did not make a better reply, but left it to my hon. Friend (Dr. Clark) and myself to do it for him.
    Vote agreed to.
    5. £6,620, to complete the sum for the Crofters' Commission.
    DR. CLARK:It is necessary to raise an important point with reference to this Vote. The great thing wanted in the Highlands, above all others, is the power to increase holdings, and I trust that before this time next year some measure will be passed on the subject. The Commissioners have not yet been able to hear all the cases brought before them. I have always held that if you give the bulk of the crofters their land for nothing you would not sufficiently increase their standard of comfort. In the 7,000 or 8,000 cases determined by the Commission it has been established beyond all question that rack-renting has been going on, because the Commissioners have reduced rant from an average of £6 a year to an average of £4 a year. Now, it is absolutely impossible for a man to bring up

    145
    a family in decency and comfort on a croft rented at £4 a year, and it is, therefore, necessary to increase the holdings. The Committee upstairs wanted to call the head of the Commission to give evidence as to why there has been practically no increase in the holdings, but we were told Sheriff Brand did not care about coming before the Committee. We were told that the Commissioners had sent a Memorial to the Secretary of State, and I trust we shall have that placed on the Table of the House, so that we shall know whether or not these clauses that are so necessary to the well being of the Highland people are a dead letter. With regard to the complaint made for two or three years by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossshire as to the reduction of rents made by the Commissioners, I have been able to verify it in my own county, and I say most emphatically that the Commissioners are not putting the Act into operation, but are wresting its provisions for the benefit of the landlords and against the crofters. In one set of cases in Caithness the average reductions have been 50 per cent. on the rent and 75 per cent. on the arrears. These appear great reductions, but even a reduction of 50 per cent, left the rents higher than they should be. The crofters are entitled to an average reduction of 80 per cent., seeing that the rents are charged on the improvements made by themselves and their predecessors in title. The only way to determine the matter equitably is to give the landlords what is sometimes called prairie value—that is to say, the value of the land separated from the value of the improvements made by the crofters. This land, 30 or 40 years ago, in most cases was not worth Is. an acre to the landlord, whereas now, thanks to the capital and labour of the tenant, it has risen in value as high as £2 an acre, and a reduction from £2 to 18s. an acre, which is the average reduction made by the Commissioners, is still an inadequate reduction. I do not blame the assessors, but the system of valuation. In the ordinary course the valuators value the croft as it stands, without considering the value created by capital and labour alone. And some of the decisions have been iniquitous. When a man has had a considerable reduction
    146
    made on his rental he has been compelled to pay a sum equivalent to two or three years' rental in the arrears. You have three Courts sitting, and all the valuators at work, and there is considerable difference in the decisions as to values and as to amounts of arrears. Sometimes only 12 months reduced arrears are awarded, and at times the amount is equivalent to a year's fair rent, while at other times it is equivalent to two or three years' fair rent. At one of the sittings we have had a Commissioner and two or three assessors. The Commissioner is an old factor who, I suppose, has given effect to considerations which have guided factors in times gone by. He has required the crofters to pay a large amount of arrears, and has given only a short time for settlement. The landlords, in some cases, availing themselves of their powers under the Acts, are anxious to secure a settlement before the appeals from the single Commissioner to the full Court can be heard. I think some steps should be taken to frustrate these tactics, otherwise, before the appeals can be heard the crofters will be declared bankrupts and driven from their holdings. I trust the Lord Advocate is considering this matter, and that before this time next year there will be an Appeal Court to consider these cases before the landlords are able to make the crofters bankrupt.
    MR. BARCLAY:I consider the point raised by the hon. Member for Caithness is a very important one indeed, upon the principle that where the tenant has executed all the improvements the landlord is not entitled to anything more than the original value of the land, and, indeed, according to the provisions of the Act itself, I contend that the reductions, instead of being 30 per cent., ought to be 90 per cent. However, I hardly think this is a suitable occasion for considering the matter fully. It is worth a formal discussion in the House. The Lord Advocate cannot interfere with the judgments of the Commissioners, and it appears to me that the only influence which can be brought to bear upon them is discussion in this House. If the attention of the Commissioners is prominently called to the principle embodied in the Act, I think an effect would be produced in the direction the hon. Member wishes.

    147
    I would suggest, therefore, that next Session we should raise, or attempt to raise, a formal discussion on this question in the House, and that seems to me the only way to have a legitimate effect on the decisions of the Crofter Commission.
    MR. A. SUTHERLAND:If rents are not reduced to just proportions, it is the fault of the Commission itself, because the latitude allowed under the Act is of the widest description. The Commissioners are asked to take into account all the circumstances of the locality, and, having considered the conditions of the holdings and of the tenants, to fix the rents accordingly. It cannot be denied that the whole of the improvements made in these holdings have been made by the people themselves, the land when taken in hand having hardly been worth 2d. an acre. If it had been worth any appreciable sum for grazing or other purposes, these people would never have got it. It is the crofter himself who has made the land valuable by the expenditure of his own labour and capital, and that he should now be called upon to pay for his own improvements, is a great grievance. Notwithstanding the respect I have for the President of the Commission, I think that many of the rents fixed are much too high. Even in cases where the reductions have been striking on rents charged on the tenants' own improvements, I think there is room for still further reductions. There is a point of hardship I should like to mention. Where a number of tenants join in making application for an enlargement of their holdings, each has to pay a stamp fee of Is. 6d., even if there are 500 of them, whereas, when a landlord makes an application in respect of a number of tenants, he has only to pay for a single stamp. I called the attention of the President of the Commission to this matter, but, as far as I know, no alteration has been made in the practice. I agree with the hon. Member who last spoke that this Act is one which requires to be thoroughly discussed in the House, but I am of opinion that in order to remedy existing grievances legislation is required.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON:The clause referred to by the hon. Member for Caithness with regard to the con-
    148
    solidation of crofts will be kept alive under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. The criticisms of hon. Members in relation to some of the decisions of the Commissioners, and the desirableness of their adopting a principle of more drastic reduction, are matters with which I cannot deal, as they are matters within the discretion of the Commissioners. The Commissioners are appointed to act as Judges under an Act of Parliament, and it is not for me to express approval or disapproval of the methods they adopt. The hon. Member must know that the reductions have been, in many instances, very striking, and also that there has been as much criticism on the action of the Commissioners in the other direction. With regard to the procedure of the Commissioners as to their sittings, that is a point on which they must be left to exercise their discretion. It seems a fair suggestion that the hon. Member has made, but the matter must rest with the Commissioners. The hon. Member for Forfarshire rather pointed to another occasion as the proper one for discussing the wide subject he is interested in, and the action he desires to see taken would very much involve the course suggested by the hon. Member for Caithness. I do not know that I need reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire, for it seemed to me that his remarks were in the nature of criticisms for the information of the Commissioners, as to the light in which their proceedings are regarded. At any rate, he has made no practical suggestion for the modification of those proceedings.
    MR. A. SUTHERLAND:Except as to the matter of stamps. And there is this other point I would draw attention to, namely, that the Commissioners, in whom full powers are vested in the matter, will persist in appointing assessors from a class that are opposed to the interests of those whose holdings they have to value. Is it because the Commissioners think that there are no persons sufficiently intelligent among the crofters to be able to fix rents, or because they have an animus against that class, that they never appoint crofters? So far as my knowledge goes, there is nothing which has roused more exasperation amongst the crofters than the method of selecting assessors.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON:The Commissioners must take the responsibility for these appointments. Several questions have been addressed to the Government on this subject, and in each instance the objection has been submitted to the Commissioners. Their reply has been that they have confidence in the integrity and intelligence of the assessors appointed. As the hon. Member knows, almost any appointment would meet with criticism from one side or the other. We must rely on the discretion of the Commissioners. As to the matter of stamps, I will take care that consideration is given to the point mentioned by the hon. Member. As to the Memorial sent to the office of the Secretary for Scotland by the Commissioners, I presume it is confidential and cannot be laid on the Table of the House.
    DR. CLARK:We have a right to know how it is that the benevolent intentions of Parliament in dealing with the one question of interest to the Highlands are practically a dead letter. The Act states that the Crofters' Commission, after considering all the circumstances of, the case,
    "And particularly after taking into consideration any permanent or unexhaustive improvement in the holdings which have been executed or paid for by the tenants,"
    may fix a fair rent. We thought the insertion of that word "particularly" would have drawn special attention to the question. Well, I have waited for several years, and have inquired into some of these cases myself, and I find that, instead of deducting the rent which has been put on the improvements made by the tenant, or his father, they have merely reduced it. I trust we shall have a Bill on the subject next year. The other question to be considered is that of determining the appeals before the Commissioners go away to other places. It is looked upon as a very great grievance by the crofter, if he is unable to pay three years' rent in one year, that he should be forced to go away to another part of the country to appeal against such an injustice.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON:I agree in principle with the hon. Member as to appeals, but it is impossible always to keep the Commissioners in one part of the country. If new cases have
    150
    been considered before old ones were disposed of, it has been because the new were more urgent than the old.
    Vote agreed to.
    6, £70,090, to complete the sum for Prisons, Scotland.
    MR. C. S. PARKER:On this Vote I must call attention to what I regard as an act of gross injustice committed four years ago, for which, by much perseverance, I have obtained redress in the case of most of those concerned, but one or two are still suffering injustice in the General Prison of Perth. I believe, also, there are similar cases elsewhere. What I complain of is, that a binding contract was made, in some cases many years ago, with prison warders and clerks, that this contract included provision for free quarters, and that in the year 1886, by a mere stroke of the pen, the Prison Authority, as I contend, harshly, inequitably, and illegally took away those free quarters. The men affected appealed to the Prison Governor, who took their view of the matter, and represented it strongly to the Prison Commissioners. The Prison Commissioners communicated with the Treasury, and I have now reason to think that the initiative in breaking faith as to free quarters, came from the Treasury. On several occasions I brought the matter before the Earl of Dalhousie, the present Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) and the present Secretary for Scotland, Lord Lothian, and, bit by bit, I obtained assurances that these men should be replaced in their free quarters. On the last occasion the question was referred to a Treasury Departmental Committee, which recommended that the free quarters should be granted in all the cases but two. I feel grateful for this decision, but I regret that it was not extended to the other two men. The language of these unfortunate men is most respectful. I hold in my hand a letter from one of those concerned. He is a first-class warder, and he produces a copy of a letter of 1882, granting him free quarters in the prison at Barlinnie, and a promise in 1884 that he should have free quarters in Perth Prison, which he held for two years, and then they were arbitrarily taken from him. I am anxious not to put the Committee to

    151
    any unnecessary trouble in this matter, but I think that a case like this, of justice to individuals, ought not to be allowed to drop because 14 out of 16 of them have had their just demands conceded. I am prepared to offer these terms to the right hon. Gentleman, that if he will carry out the engagement he has made, and let me know, detail, in what grounds can be assigned for making a distinction unfavourable to these men, I will fairly consider them, and, if there is anything substantial in them, I will not press the matter any further. If, however, the reasons are in the nature of special pleading, I must raise the question again in a full House. I really think if the Treasury would look at the matter in a broad spirit of equity they would see they ought not to have deprived these unfortunate men of that which was granted to them.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,:I am extremely sorry if the hon. Member has not had all the information it was in the power of the Treasury to give, so as to remove from him the obligation of periodically bringing forward this question. I hope I may be allowed to repudiate the suggestion of special pleading in the matter. There is no special pleading on the part of the Treasury, which, sometimes, however, has disagreeable duties to discharge. In this case everything has been done by the Treasury which could possibly be expected. A Departmental Committee was appointed to consider the matter, and the hon. Member himself will admit that no Committee was ever appointed which was more free from prejudice. The Treasury has given effect to the recommendation of the Committee, which decided that in the cases to which the hon. Member specially refers, the warders had no claim. The hon. Member asks for the grounds of the decision. I will let him see the official Report, and if he is not satisfied, he will be able to bring the matter forward again next year.
    MR. CALDWELL:These men had free quarters given to them, and then the free quarters were taken away again. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to make inquiries into the matter, and to exercise his own judgment, which I should respect far
    152
    more than that of a Departmental Committee.
    Vote agreed to.

    CLASS IV.
    7. £301,581, to complete the sum for Public Education, Scotland.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON:It is usual to make a statement in introducing this Vote. The total annual grant this year is £ 522,963, as against £493,384 last year, or a nett increase of £29,579. This is due, in the first place, to £4,000 being granted in aid of certain districts in the Highlands, which was formerly charged under the Probate Act, but which now comes from the Imperial Exchequer, and to a considerable increase in the grants in aid of the schools. That is made up first by the increased attendances from 504,188 last year to 529,397, and in the second place by the increase of grants per scholar from 19s. 3¼d. to 19s. 6d. The cost of the maintenance of schools has risen from £1,087,000 to £1,173,930. Of this sum the Parliamentary grant amounts to £354,000. But, in contemplating the burden on the rates, it is necessary to bear in mind that the rates continue to bear the cost of providing schools, which amounts to £545,000. The cost for maintenance, so far as the rates are concerned, is about 3d. per £1, while the cost altogether in pence is 6·36d. per £1. As regards the amount of rates in comparison with the previous year, when there was a large increase of rates—that is to say, in the class of parishes in burghs where the rates are over 9d.—the increase has been in the following ratio:—In the case of burghs, from 14 to 28 per cent., and, in the case of the parishes, from 20 to 23 per cent. Looking, on the other hand, to where the rates are over 6d. in the £1, there has been an increase in burghs from 62 to 77 per cent., and in parishes from 60 to 63 per cent. The total cost of providing schools since the Act of 1872 has been £4,371,609, with the result of providing 715,876 places, which is equivalent to 17 per cent. of the population. From a practical point of view, the result is that places are provided for what may be regarded as the whole number of persons who have to attend school, and, therefore, the necessities of accommodation under the new system have now practically been met,

    153
    and nothing but the normal increase will hereafter have to be provided for. I would like to refer to what, educationally, is of equal importance—the reconstruction of the Code, the significance of which can hardly be over-estimated. The Committee will remember that the abolition or limitation of individual examination has been recommended by the Scotch Education Department by way of experiment. The Department has been watching the experiment to see if an extension would be justified. The result has been a great success, and, accordingly, the new Scotch Code, for the first time in Great Britain, has done away with individual examinations, and has carried the other system into all the standards and schools. This has been cautiously bat boldly done, and I am sure that all interested in education will watch with interest and hope the great experiment on a large scale which is being made. It should be borne in mind that the success of the system must depend, to a certain extent, upon the co-operation of the teachers, managers, and Inspectors, in order to see that education does not suffer. Another change which has been made, and which will be appreciated by those who are conversant with the practical working of the educational system, is the power of choice that has been given in regard to specific subjects. There is a large latitude allowed to managers of schools in their selection, and they are now the judges of what subjects best meet the educational wants of their district, and also what subjects can best be dealt with by the existing staff. Discrimination and discretion, no doubt, in selecting that which is best adapted both to the pupils and the capacity of the teaching staff, and here, again, reliance must be placed on the co-operation of all concerned. I think it would not be fair if I passed from this question without ascribing the praise that is due to the Secretary of the Education Department, who has had the charge of this great educational change. His constructive skill and knowledge are displayed in every duty he undertakes, but it is shown conspicuously in this great work. Again, in the higher class of schools the system of certificates has proved very successful, and the number competed for and obtained has largely increased relatively
    154
    and absolutely during the last three years. In 1888 there were 972 candidates; in 1889, 2,066; and in 1890, 2,528. The number of papers taken in 1888 was 4,300; in 1889, 4,200; and in 1890, 11,200. The results have been good. In all, 5,687 certificates have been issued, and 11,300 papers. The fact that these certificates have been accepted as evidence of proficiency by many Public Bodies, not only vouches for the value of the certificates, but also for the interest taken by these bodies in changes of this kind. Another feature of the past year relates to a more circumscribed area, namely, the Highlands; though it is of very great importance to that part of the country. The Committee will remember that not very long since there existed in many parishes in the Highlands a state of matters with regard to the schools which constituted a great difficulty in carrying out any educational system. The schools were in a very undesirable condition. The bank accounts were overdrawn; the teachers were unpaid; the managers of the schools were heavily in debt to the Local Commissioners; and the members of the Board were ready to resign. It was not impossible that, in some of those parishes, there might be a collapse of the educational work or system, and something was urgently required to be done. In this the objects to be obtained were to maintain the schools, to restore the credit of the Boards, to insure local co-operation, and to procure efficiency in the schools. By the changes made, and the offer of assistance to the Boards if they came under the arrangement laid down, I am glad to say that these ends have been largely secured in many of the Highland schools I refer to. Thirteen parishes, representing 81 schools, have already come under the arrangement, which is optional, and the results achieved in these schools are that while before many teachers were unpaid, now every teacher is being paid, efficiency in the schools has been restored, the debts of the Boards to the bankers have, in many cases, been entirely wiped off, and in others largely reduced, and the debts to the Local Commissioners have also been paid to a large extent. It is only fair to say that the Local Boards have cordially cooperated in bringing about these beneficial

    155
    changes. One of the results of the change has been a considerable reduction in the rates, though, perhaps, the greatest cause of satisfaction is the restoration of efficiency in the schools. While some of the rates stood at so high a figure as 5s. 4d. in the £1, and the average stood at 2s. 3½d. in the £1, the average now is 1s. 4½d. in the £1. Therefore, the anxiety which existed some time since with regard to the state of educational matters in the Highlands has, to a large extent, been allayed, and we may hope now that the School Boards will be able to give their whole attention to the progress of education. The system introduced has been successful, not only from an educational but also from an administrative point of view, and I feel sure that it will have the co-operation of the Scotch Members.
    MR. SINCLAIR:We have to thank the Lord Advocate for the speech with which he has opened this Debate, and to congratulate him and the Government upon the very admirable Report he has been able to lay before the Committee. But I think it would not be right for us to let this occasion pass without taking some notice of the educational changes that have taken place during the past year. We have had little more than eight or nine months' experience of the working of the new system, which is not sufficient to enable us to arrive at any definite conclusion. We may see certain tendencies at work, but we cannot say what will be the ultimate outcome. One thing of which there can be no doubt whatever, is that the abolition of fees in the lower standards has brought about a great increase of attendance in infant schools and in the lower standards. I think we shall find that the attendance of infants will continue to increase, especially in the country districts, and that more school accommodation will be required. The question of regularity of attendance is somewhat more doubtful. In some places the attendance has been more regular and in other places it has not. I think those who look into the matter will find the explanation is, that the children of the better class of artizans, who realise the nature of the education, are attending better, while the children of the poorer classes, who do not know the value of education, are attending more
    156
    irregularly. Then, again, it is doubtful whether the attendance in the higher or compulsory standards is increasing. I believe that while it has not increased it has not diminished. I believe that it will increase, and that those who thoroughly know the value of education will, by allowing their children to continue at school, secure the advantage of this better education. Those who do not appreciate the importance of education, not having the advantage of it themselves, rather look at the continuation of their children at school beyond the compulsory standards as a loss, and here arises the necessity so often urged for abolishing fees in the higher standards of elementary education. This is the more necessary when we find in the Report of the Education Department that it is stated that gradually children are leaving school at an earlier age, improvements in our educational system and better attendance enabling children to pass the compulsory standards more readily. This is remarked upon by Dr. Craik in his Report for the Southern Division. He says, while the age at which children pass the exemption standards is steadily diminishing, the question becomes a serious one, what shall be done with the children when school attendance is no longer compulsory, and the children are too young for employment. On educational grounds it is desirable to raise the exemption to Standard 6 from Standard 5. This important point will, I trust, receive the careful attention of the Government during the Recess. This brings me to the necessity for assisting the continuation or night schools, in regard to which we have had such a gratifying Report from the Lord Advocate to-night—gratifying so far as it goes. These schools seem to have increased not so much in numbers as in attendance, and if children are gradually leaving elementary schools at an earlier age it certainly is much more necessary that their education in high schools, or continuation schools, should be encouraged much more than in the past it has been. I am glad that, in my constituency, this matter has excited much attention, and the establishment of these schools in the burghs of Lanark and Airdrie has been attended with the most gratifying results in education of the children

    157
    attending. I desire to press upon the Government, most seriously, in view of what is before us in the coming Session, the necessity for careful, exhaustive examination and investigation into the various facts bearing on the present position of education in Scotland, where education has largely been made free, and especially as bearing upon higher and secondary education. Scotland now applies the amount received from the Probate Duty Grant to the relief of primary education, and the sum devoted to the purpose will be released when the general grant for assisting primary education is made from Imperial resources, but the claim of Scotland will undoubtedly be that, as this money comes from Scotland's own special Revenue, it should still be applied according to the wishes of the majority of the Scottish people, namely, to education. I sincerely trust that higher elementary and secondary education and, perhaps, too, university education will receive from this fund the assistance that is much needed. The Government are to be congratulated upon the assistance they have received from Dr. Craik. The Lord Advocate, in graceful terms, has acknowledged the care and ability displayed by Dr. Craik, both in the Code and in the necessary steps for carrying out the great experiment of assisted education in Scotland. I hope sincerely that when next we have this Vote under discussion we shall find this experiment still more successful towards realising that desire for a thorough system of education which is engraved in the Scottish character.
    MR. HUNTER:Perhaps there never was a year when more important matters offered themselves for consideration in relation to this Vote, never a time when an exhaustive discussion of the present state of Scottish education and its future development was more desirable. But I cannot help remarking that this is the 7th of August, that two-thirds of the Scottish Members have left town, and that the remainder are anxious to follow their example. Under the circumstances it is not desirable to make the attempt to follow the Lord Advocate into those topics suggested in his speech, and, for my part, I propose to confine myself to a single matter which requires consideration at the earliest possible date by the
    158
    Education Department. The Lord Advocate has referred to the success of the leaving certificates. The idea of establishing this, which serves as a sort of mark of graduation, a title that the pupil has passed through a course of secondary education, was first suggested about 1886, and ultimately taken up two years later, and now, after three years' experience, the account given by the Lord Advocate shows that this happy idea has been successfully carried into practice, and has become a sort of formal degree which, from the popularity it has secured, shows that it supplies a felt want. Up to this point I have nothing to give the Department but praise for what they have done; but now I wish to ask the attention of the Lord Advocate to something the Department have left undone. When this experiment was first instituted we were, I think, justified in not pressing the Government too severely upon what we considered a somewhat narrow restriction in its application—the exemption from the leaving certificate examinations of certain elementary schools, which schools are not permitted to send up pupils. I am not going to move a reduction of the Vote, for I will not assume that my suggestion will be met in a spirit of hostility by the Government. The time has now come, after three years' experience, when this suggestion may be favourably considered. There is in Scotland a general, and, on the part of the schoolmasters, a unanimous feeling that the privilege of sending up pupils for leaving certificates should be open to all the elementary schools throughout the country. I think when the Government come to deal with this particular question, they will find little difficulty in giving effect to this opinion. I am aware that the view put forth is that the superior advantage of issuing these certificates is that not only is a certificate a test of the possession of a certain amount of knowledge, but it also testifies to the fact that the pupil has passed through a course of education in a recognised secondary school. That, of course, is perfectly true under existing rules; but it cannot be put forward as a serious argument in favour of the exclusive nature of the present arrangements. It is like saying you will give a man a certificate for cookery, and this shall be a certificate

    159
    not only of his proficiency as a cook, but that he comes from a classical kitchen. Most people, I think, would regard the latter as a very secondary consideration, the fact to establish being that the man could do his work well. If there were in Scotland a sharp line of demarcation between elementary and secondary schools, no hardship would arise from the present state of things, but one of the peculiarities of the Scottish system of education is that many of the so-called elementary schools are not really elementary. This is a peculiarity recognised in the Act of 1872. In that Act schools are not called elementary schools, nor, as regards many of them, are they so as a matter of fact. In many of these schools, for years past, it has been usual to carry the education of the children to such a point that they can pass from these so-called elementary schools to the Universities without passing through any intermediate or secondary course. No doubt this has become less frequent than it was, partly because of the more severe demands upon the elementary school teachers, and partly through the raising of the standard in the Universities. Still there is a class of schools which, though styled elementary, possess all the means of affording sufficient education to enable pupils to obtain the leaving certificate. This leaving certificate is becoming of great value. It is accepted in some professions as the pass of an entrance examination, and why, I ask, should you deprive a boy of the opportunity of obtaining a leaving certificate merely on account of the particular school in which he received his education? This is a question difficult to answer in a satisfactory manner. Further, there are 15 counties in Scotland where there are no schools of the class to which the leaving certificates are confined. So that the utility of the certificates is immensely circumscribed. Out of 24 large burghs, no fewer than 11 do not possess the kind of schools which alone qualify for leaving certificates. What harm can possibly accrue from the enlargement of the area? It is a point upon which schoolmasters in Scotland lay great stress. They are very anxious to have the opportunity of ending boys to compete for these leaving certificates, they take a pleasure in teach-
    160
    ing a somewhat higher class of subjects, and the competition among masters to send up the largest number of boys with the best education is a thing I do not think we ought to do anything to discourage. Up to the present time the Department have not seen their way to extend competition for leaving certificates beyond secondary schools, but I hope now they will re-consider this when the leaving certificate has become an accomplished fact and has ceased to be an experiment, and promises to be a triumphant success. I do not believe the extension would in the least discourage higher education. In pressing this upon the Lord Advocate I know I express the very strong, the fervent opinion entertained, I think I may say universally, by masters of elementary schools, and I am sure the extension would be appreciated by those masters. I believe also it would have a good influence on secondary schools, which are yet in a half-and-half, and far from satisfactory condition in many respects.
    MR. E. ROBERSTON:I agree it is impossible to attempt a discussion of these Estimates at a time when two-thirds of our Members have left town and only one-tenth are to be found in the House. It would be absolutely useless to attempt to test the opinion of Scotch Members on any subject whatever, and, therefore, these Votes must pass without serious extension. This will make matters easy for the Government, but I hope it will not induce them to repeat the performance of this Session next year, but that we shall have these Estimates before us earlier than in the concluding days of the Session. There are two points only to which I wish to call attention. The Lord advocate has said nothing about training colleges. The principle on which these colleges are based has been repeatedly challenged by Scotch Members, who desire that the teaching profession should be trained in the Universities. I am not going over the arguments formerly used, but I may say we do not depart in the least from our old attitude. I understand that the policy of the Department at this moment is undergoing some development, and that it has not yet assumed its final shape. I have a letter here from the Education Department on this question.

    161
    in answer to an appeal made by the combined Academical Authorities of St. Andrews and Dundee, that these institutions should be recognised as training colleges for teachers under a scheme they have jointly formulated, and as I understand, it is precisely the same demand we have repeatedly put forward, that Universities should be allowed to undertake the mission of training schoolmasters, as they now train clergymen, doctors, lawyers, and the professional classes. Apparently the Department, which has hitherto lent no countenance to our view, reserves its final conclusion until the University Commission now engaged in considering the subject of higher education makes its report. I do not know whether the Lord Advocate can add anything to this correspondence, but I hope, if he can, it will be in the direction of some sort of assurance that the strong desire which is felt, and which I should think is not confined to this side of the House, and certainly exists throughout the teaching profession, shall be met by the assistance of the Department towards giving schoolmasters the benefit of training for these professions at Universities among members of other professions. There is one other point to which I wish to refer, though I am not quite sure whether it comes within the province of the Lord Advocate to answer. I have been asked to call attention to a point of difficulty, namely, that the grant for drawing is, in the case of girls, conditional upon their being taught cookery as well. This is an arrangement to which the School Board of Dundee object. I believe their application to the Department has been met with the official non possumus which usually meets all suggestions. I am not fully acquainted with the merits of the question myself, but I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the point in the hope that he may see his way to gratify the wishes of the managers of schools on the matter.
    MR. A. SUTHERLAND:I am free to join in the congratulations expressed towards the Scotch Education Department upon the improvements carried out during the year, improvements that have arisen from two causes, the increased liberality of Parliament and the initiation of
    162
    reforms which have yet to be extended further. I refer, principally, to the abolition of individual examinations. I brought this matter before the Lord Advocate last year, and I am very glad to hear the admission on the part of the Department that after an experience of 18 months the system has, on the whole, been adopted with great success, a success which I hope will encourage further extension, and the removal of restrictions now imposed. With regard to the Code, I am glad to find that managers in particular localities are allowed more freedom and discretion in fixing the curriculum. I need only refer to the importance of agriculture in some parts of the country, and I am sure that the discretion allowed to teachers and managers will result in advantage to education throughout the whole country. I am glad to hear the Lord Advocate state, that as regards the Highlands, there is a probability of matters reverting to their normal state, and that the financial difficulties of the School Boards there will be overcome. If we look at the circumstances, I think they justify the conduct of the Government to some extent. There is nothing but praise to be given, so far as I know, to the efforts made by the Education Department to enlarge the discretion allowed to managers and teachers. But I had expected, on examining the tables of salaries, to see some evidence of increased liberality to the teachers. Unfortunately it is not apparent, although in some parts of the country the authorities have profited largely by the introduction of the new scheme dealing with school fees, and have been enabled to reduce the local rates. I maintain that the reduction of the local rate is not the purpose to which this money should be properly applied. There are other objects to which it should be first diverted. Everyone practically acquainted with the system of education in Scotland knows that there is a great want of teaching apparatus. I know from personal knowledge cases in which Her Majesty's Inspectors have made complaints on that score. I hold, then, that this money should be devoted first to a reasonable augmentation of the teachers' salaries, and then to the provision of proper teaching apparatus. I feel that on this

    163
    point the Department would be justified in issuing a Circular to School Boards calling upon them to devote to these purposes any money they receive in excess of the school fees.
    MR. C. S. PARKER:I agree with my hon. Friend that the claims of the teachers for increased salaries, and for improved teaching apparatus, should take precedence over the lowering of the rates. But he will admit that the grant has been distributed in a manner most beneficial and fair to the Highlands. In many schools there scarcely any money was received in fees, and had the Department gone on the principle of paying out of the Probate Duty last year sufficient to each school to replace the fees which they lost by the freeing of the standards, these Highland schools would have received but a very small share. But the Department went on a sounder principle; it realised that the money was paid by and belonged to the ratepayers; it came to the conclusion that each school was entitled to receive a share in proportion to the number of children receiving education in the school, and thus considerable relief has been given to the poorer districts. In that way it has, happily, been found possible to reduce the rates in some places in the Highlands where they were intolerably high. We can hardly find fault with the Lord Advocate for the brevity of his speech. But it is to me, and I think it must be to Scotch Members generally, a matter for regret that in a year so very important in the history of Scotch education, we should have had no opportunity to discuss in a full House the new departure and the new policy. I am pleased to notice that the Minister for Education in England is present to listen to this Debate, and I think it a matter of common regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield is unavoidably prevented attending, because every one knows that when he was Education Minister he constantly looked on Scotland as giving him a lead for his policy in England. The two main features of the new departure are the diminution of individual examination and the remission of fees in the compulsory standards. On the first point I will not detain the House, will merely congratulate the House and
    164
    the Scotch Members on the movement in this direction, for two or three years ago, when I had the honour to serve on the Committee to which questions of education in Scotland were referred, this question was not laid before us till we were nearing the end of our labours, and we decided that we were not prepared to give an opinion upon it without first taking evidence from different parts of Scotland. At that time it was probably hoped that we would accept the partial remission of compulsory individual examination as tolerably satisfactory, but I think it has been well to go a step further. The second point, the remission of fees, is one of cardinal importance. And while I heartily join in the tribute of praise to the Education Department, I feel that neither in their Report nor in the Lord Advocate's speech have we had an adequate discussion of this new departure in practically doing away with the fees in nearly the whole of the standards. I hardly think, for instance, that hon. Members have realised the financial bearing of the change. The income derived from fees in the last year for which we have a Report was £331,000. Now, by this new system you have parted with that income, and, in lieu of it, you have received a somewhat smaller sum. Last year you got £240,000, and this year an extra £40,000, and if some fee-paying schools had not been kept alive your educational finance would have been very seriously crippled. It is the duty of this House to criticise the action of the Department and to watch the financial effects of its policy. I think the change has had grave consequences which ought to have been noticed more fully in the Report. Of course, I can sympathise with the permanent officials charged with the duty of framing the Report. I can quite understand that when great changes are being made it is not very convenient to expose them to the full brunt of Parliamentary criticism, whilst they are in a transitional state. But if in the coming year the Government fulfil their promises, and deal with the question of English education as regards fees, there will then be a very considerable fund available for Scotland, and unless we then face the problem of the organisation of education

    165
    in Scotland in connection with finance, we shall find ourselves in perplexity. We shall then have funds sufficient to provide a number of free places in the higher schools. I am convinced that the time has come for the Department to deal with the extraordinary-overlapping which takes place between the higher grade schools and what are called the higher class schools. In many cases the difference between the two is not such as to justify their very different financial positions. The higher, grade school is a development of the ordinary school and receives a full grant from Parliament. Some of these schools are drawing very large sums directly from the Parliamentary grant. Yet by their side we have other high schools which are under public management, and which receive absolutely nothing from the Government grant. It is impossible to justify the distinction between the two. This is a grave question of educational policy, and it seems to me that in dealing with the schools which are so aspiring under the School Boards, it would be more fair not to assign to them so large a share of the Government Grant as they now receive, but to give the Grammar [Schools and the old High Schools some Imperial aid. These two kinds of schools should be classified very much together. I have two other points on which to say a word, and the first is that of training colleges. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee has never fully understood the policy which was recommended by the Departmental Committee. It goes some way in the direction he desires, because besides promoting the attendance of teachers in training at University classes, it directly recognises the principle [that any body of men coming forward as managers prepared to start a training school with adequate guarantees both as to finance and as to the standard of education to be maintained should meet with favourable consideration, and be put on precisely the same terms as the managers of other training colleges. I attach great importance to that, and I would urge upon the Lord Advocate to consider a favourably the case of the training college proposed for Dundee. The Universities of Dundee and St. Andrews, supported by the
    166
    Dundee School Board, have made a definite proposal to the Department, and I think they ought to be treated as a body coming under the recommendations of the Report of the Departmental Committee. It is a weak side of training colleges that they have the name of being denominational even if they are not so in reality, and in the case of Dundee we now have the opportunity of securing a really undenominational college. I hope the chance will not be lost. With regard to evening schools—the last point on which I have to touch—I regret that since 1881 there has been a lamentable falling off in the attendance at them. It is now increasing again, but I think some greater effort must be made to develope and promote these schools, which are so useful for carrying on the education of those driven by hard necessity to leave school at an early age, and for supplying those who need it with industrial and technical training.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON:Hon. Members will not, I am sure, think it necessary for me to pass in view all the subjects which have been discussed. They are, of course, of very great interest; but my hon. Friends have been good enough to intimate that they have no desire to exact from me any statement in reply.
    MR. C. S. PARKER:Is the scheme for a training college for Dundee to be entertained?
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON:That will depend largely on the Report of the-University Commission.
    MR. HUNTER:I think the right, hon. Gentleman is rather mistaken in his impression that I desired no reply. (8.58.)
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON:The hon. Member for Aberdeen has suggested that the system for leaving certificates should be extended to schools other than those to which it is now applicable. It at present applies solely to schools that do not receive a Parliament grant, and which are higher or secondary schools in the ordinary acceptation of the term. It is difficult to draw a line in Scotland between those schools which give a higher training and those which do not. It is not well to lay down a hard and fast line on this point. At the same time, dealing with the

    167
    present state of matters, I doubt if it would be safe or advantageous to extend the system, which, as the hon. Member has pointed out, is rather an advantage for those schools which do not receive the Parliamentary grant, and which also has the great merit of encouraging the recognition of secondary schools as part of the educational equipment of the country. If we were to extend the system, we should be incurring some risks of which the Committee ought to be made aware. In the first place, it must be borne in mind that the class of schools which receive Parliamentary grants do so on the footing that elementary education is their primary concern, and it is one of the features of Parliamentary grants—which have their merits, as well as their demerits—that they establish an obligation on the teachers loyally to encourage the cleverer boys and those who are likely to rise to higher grades of education. I am afraid that if the leaving certificates were extended wholesale to all schools earning grants there might be a tendency on the part of schoolmasters to give more attention to the cleverer boys, in order that they might obtain leaving certificates. That is not to accuse the teachers of any sordid motives at all, but rather to accredit them with aspirations for the success of their work, which, I suppose, are characteristic of most of our Scotch masters. On the whole, the attitude of the Scotch Department is one of reserve on the present question, and I think it would be most unwise on my part, on the present occasion, to commit myself to any extension of the existing system. At the same time, I hope the observations I have made will show hon. Members that I am not entirely ignorant of the subject.
    MR. CALDWELL:If there is no adequate discussion of education, it is not owing to any want of interest in the subject or any want of will to criticise the Education Vote, but simply from a sense of the lapse of time. I would only point out that in former years we agreed not to discuss the Education Vote at length, in the hope that it would be brought on at an earlier period in the year following. Experience has shown, however, that all our hopes of getting the Estimate on in
    168
    time for a proper discussion have been illusory. We are now passing the Vote in a perfunctory manner, but I give notice that, no matter at what period of next Session this Vote is brought forward, I shall insist on fully discussing it.
    Vote agreed to.
    8. £1,500, to complete the sum for the National Gallery, &c. (Scotland).
    MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND:This Vote appears as a grant to Scotland, but, really, it is nothing of the kind. The sum of money voted to Scotland is totally inadequate to meet the requirements of the case, and bears no proportion whatever to the amount voted for England and Ireland for the same purpose. Repeated complaint has been made in this House that no grant has been given to Scotland adequate to her requirements, and we had expected that by this time provision would have been made for the purpose. I am not in favour of voting money for a public purpose unless there is a proper method of supervision, and the facts in regard to the present Vote show how ridiculous the whole thing is. This is a grant to the Board of Manufactures in Scotland for the purpose of maintaining a National Gallery, and the incongruity of the purpose thus stated strikes one very forcibly. England receives £9,500 for the purpose of purchasing pictures, and Ireland receives £2,500, while Scotland receives no grant at all, for the history of the Vote now before us is shortly this: At the time of the Union, £398,000 was given to Scotland in consideration of the fact that she had no National Debt, and that taxes would have to be imposed on her to make her position equal to that of England. Part of that money was used to pay off the capital of the Scottish India Company that entered into competition with the English East India Company; secondly, a moiety was given to indemnify the Scottish nation for reducing its currency to the standard of the English currency; and part of the remainder—so it is said—was given for the purpose of bribing Scottish Members of Parliament to vote for the Union; and a further portion, some £40,000, remains a debt unpaid by England to Scotland, and this £2,000 is the interest of that, so that we have only our own money given to us in the shape of a grant for

    169
    maintaining a National Gallery. This Vote does not account to the public for the way in which the money is spent, as it is nominally for the purpose of encouraging manufactures. I hope the Government will see their way to handing the whole of this £40,000 over to Scotland.
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELL:I had not the advantage of hearing the earlier part of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, but I gathered from his concluding words that he was drawing attention to a matter which has engaged the attention of more than one Scotch Member, and that is the disparity between the sum granted for the National Gallery in Scotland and the grants made to the Galleries in London and Dublin. I think this is a point which will come under the consideration of the Committee which is to sit to inquire into the incidence of taxation, as between the three countries. I may be allowed to state that I sympathise, to a great extent, with the natural anxiety of Scotch Members, that an institution such as the Scotch National Gallery, of which we are all so justly proud, should be treated on equal terms with similar institutions in other parts of the United Kingdom, and I hope that when the inquiry is made a case will be made out for an increase of this Vote.
    DR. CLARK:It is satisfactory to hear the Scotch Lord of the Treasury say what he has done. The Secretary to the Treasury, I see, has left the House—presumably because he did not wish to hear this matter discussed—but as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in his place, I would express a hope that just as the Scotch Members worry the Scotch Officials, so they in turn will worry the Treasury, until justice is done to Scotland in this and in many other respects.
    Vote agreed to.

    CLASS VII.
    9. Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £956, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1891, for Expenditure connected with the Colonisation of certain Crofters and Cottars of the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland."
    DR. CLARK:I do not know who is going to defend this Vote to-
    170
    night, but I must say, to use a vulgar word, it will require a good deal of "cheek" for any Minister to get up and support this Vote after the disastrous failure of the scheme for emigrating the crofters. I think that in all the meddling and muddling and indefensible action that has ever characterised any Government, there has never been anything worse than the action of the present Government in regard to crofter emigration. The Government suddenly sprung on us a proposal to give £9,000 for the purpose of relieving the condition of the highlands by sending away a number of the highland people. They had everything their own way. They were in the position to get the money, they got it, and a number of people were sent out, and we knew nothing about it until we heard that the people sent out were destitute and starving, and that subscriptions were being raised for them in Canada. We asked questions of the Lord Advocate and got the usual denial of the facts, but some light was thrown on the matter owing to the fact that there was a Committee sitting on colonisation—of which the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was Chairman. That Committee had before them the Managing Director of the great Land Company on whose land these people were placed, and since then there has been a Report published and laid on the Table of the House, in which there is an attempt made to extenuate as far as possible this disagreeable and sad history. This Managing Director—Mr. Oliver—by way of explanation, said, "The crofters were sent out in a great hurry," and that "no preparations were made for their reception." But whose fault was that? Why were the crofters sent out in a hurry, and why were no preparations made for their reception? Why did you give £10,000 to people in Glasgow—land sharks as they are sometimes called—without seeing that the people were sent out under such conditions as would give them a fair chance? Mr. Oliver went on to say that the emigrants started too late in the year, and that the whole thing was bungled from beginning to end. There were Scotch Societies in Toronto, who appointed a committee to inquire into the matter, and the Report of that committee corroborated all that Mr. Oliver

    171
    and the other witnesses stated before the committee. It was admitted that no preparations were made for the reception of the emigrants, that they arrived a couple of months too late, so that they lost a year, and that the poor people were left for some days in the railway cars which brought them, and that there were no sheds to receive them. The Secretary of the Canadian Colonisation Company—to whom you are voting this £900—recommends that big sheds shall be built, so that, when the second lot of crofters go out, they can live in them, and subsequently use the building materials for the purpose of constructing permanent houses. People were "settled" in places where there was no water—where wells were sunk 18 feet without finding water; and they have sown their potatoes and other seeds without getting as much return as will serve them again to put into the ground. And this is the panacea of the Government for the relief of the Highlands. They obtain Imperial money, and throw it away in this manner. It was an experiment—the first of a series which, if the Committee sitting upstairs reports upon favourably, will probably be repeated on a larger scale. I hold that we can have no confidence in those who manage this emigration, and that it would be the height of folly for Parliament to vote another penny to this administration, or to enable other crofters to be sent out. You ask for £336 for administration, and I can understand that; but why do you want £620 for colonisation? Are you going to send out more people? ["No."] Then what is the money for? After the way the money which was granted has been fooled away, those who had the spending of it should be ashamed to come and ask for more.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,:I must deprecate this discussion which has been introduced by the hon. Member for Caithness. I have been serving for the last two years on the Select Committee which is sitting to investigate this and cognate questions, and it is a matter of great regret to me that the Committee has not been able to bring its labours to a conclusion, during the present Session, but that is only because they did not wish to exclude any evidence which may
    172
    throw light upon the subject. It is hardly fair of the hon. Member to bring forward one side of the evidence only, He knows perfectly well that the evidence from which he has quoted was not the only evidence and that there is evidence on the other side. I am not going to copy the example set by the hon. Member, for my mind is perfectly open, but if it should be the pleasure of the House to re-appoint the Committee next Session I shall, having utilised the holidays in mastering the evidence, be prepared to submit the conclusions of the Committee with a view to reporting to the House. Therefore, it would not be right for the Committee to draw any conclusion from the ex parte statement of the hon. Member. This money is asked for to meet expenses already incurred. The machinery to promote the experiment is here kept alive. I earnestly hope that the condition of these people is for the most part better than the hon.. Member has described, but I am anxious to draw no conclusion on that point, for it is a matter upon which I tope the Committee will next Session be prepared to submit an absolute conclusion. As this money has most of it been expended, and as some of it is now needed, the Committee will see it would be impossible to refuse the Vote, and I would ask hon. Members not to come to a premature conclusion on an ex parte statement.
    MR. A. SUTHERLAND:The right hon. Gentleman says this money is being expended in relieving the congestion of certain parts of the Highlands. I ask the right hon. Gentleman and the Lord Advocate if they can point to any part of Scotland the congestion of which has been relieved out of this expenditure? Can they point to any portion of Lewis where the holdings have been increased by the expenditure of this money? There have been 465 human beings deported. I challenge the Government to show that any relief has been afforded to the congested population; although possibly the poor rates paid by the Highland landlords may have been reduced. We should be unfaithful to our constituents if we did not raise our voices against this Vote. Every means has been used, underhand and otherwise, to put the people out, so that wild animals might flourish where the people

    173
    ought to be. I shall move a reduction in order that the Scotch Members may take a Division to mark their sense of the conduct of the Government in this matter. The scheme for the deportation of the people was signed by 24 of the largest landed proprietors in the North of Scotland. The £2,000 which is to be raised in addition to the £10,000 given by the Government would be only £83 from each of these territorial magnates, but instead of subscribing the money they have sent round the hat through the cities of Scotland, hoping that the wealthier Highlanders in the cities would raise it. I want to know whether the £2,000 has been made up? If not, it is a proof that the people of Scotland are opposed to this deportation. I move to reduce the Vote by £500.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £456, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Angus Sutherland.)
    MR. PROVAND:I was one of those who foolishly, as I now know, subscribed towards the £2,000. I am certain that the whole of that money has been worse than wasted. Every account we have received from Canada shows that the money ought never to have been applied to such a purpose, while no appreciable benefit can be pointed to in any part of the Highlands. The people who were sent to Canada have suffered very seriously. Had they gone out assisted by their own friends they would not have been so neglected as they have been by the people for whom you now ask £336. It is said we ought not to accept the ex parte statement of the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark), and that other, evidence can be produced. Why is that other evidence not laid before us? The only evidence that has been made public is against the experiment it proves that the experiment has been a complete failure; any scheme of Government emigration connected with the Highlands of Scotland will be as great a failure as this. I, therefore, hope that no money will be voted by this Committee supplementary to the original £10,000.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,:I understand
    174
    that the whole of the £2,000 has been subscribed.
    DR. CLARK:The £10,000 was conditional on the £2,000.
    MR. GOSCHEN:The hon. Member, perhaps, did not catch the point raised by his colleague (Mr. A. Sutherland). That hon. Gentleman asked whether the £2,000 has been subscribed.
    MR. A. SUTHERLAND:I have no means of knowing.
    MR. GOSCHEN:It has been subscribed.
    MR. CALDWELL:Who made it up; persons in official positions?
    MR. GOSCHEN:I hardly thought we had come to this, that a stop is to be put to the charitable actions of persons in official positions. I have no knowledge that any particular official subscribed, but whatever was done by anybody was prompted by a desire to make this experiment succeed, and I think a more ungenerous suggestion than that of the hon. Member was never made. Then we are asked whether any other persons are to be sent out. No more persons are to be sent out, and the additional money is not to be voted for that purpose. But the experiment has shown the desirableness of continuous inspection being kept up for a certain portion of time, and this fact accounts for a certain portion of the money. I have looked very carefully into the matter from the Treasury point of view, and it has been found that in the case of certain large families, containing two or three strong men, an additional small grant will enable them to take so much more land as will spread the energies of the family, and insure the success of the experiment at a small additional cost. The money wanted is lent, and there is a fair prospect of its return; and the £600 has been sanctioned, after careful inquiry, in order to insure further progress in the prosperity of this most important colony. I have had the opportunity of conversing with persons who have seen these families in their new positions, and, while some of them indulged in the traditional privilege of grumbling, many of them express themselves as being perfectly satisfied. Though they have passed through some suffering, they see that their future prospects in their new homes are far superior to their prospects

    175
    in the old country, and that a much brighter future lies before them than if they had remained in their old congested districts. The Government have been fully conscious of the great importance of this experiment. Mistakes have, of course, been made, but there is an anxious desire to make the experiment a thorough success. Not another shilling will be sent in extending the experiment until the Commissioners have reported, and until the House of Commons has discussed the whole question. I hope that hon. Members will not divide the Committee. It has been said this is not the only way of dealing with the Crofter Question. Have we not admitted that by appointing a Commission to inquire into the subject? The Report of the Commission will soon be in the hands of Members, and we hope to have an opportunity in a future Session of showing hon. Members that we have the interests of the crofters at heart. We shall look to the co-operation of hon. Members in several directions to extend the means of livelihood, and to improve the position of the people of that interesting portion of Her Majesty's dominions.
    DR. CLARK:I shall not vote against the £620, if it is to relieve the suffering of the people who have been sent out to Canada, but I shall vote against the £336 for administration. If these pseudo philanthropists were at all decent they would pay the money out of their own pockets. There is no evidence in regard to this particular case contrary to the view I have expressed. The Secretary to the Commission went over to see the people, and, reading between the lines of his evidence, we find the failure of the experiment admitted when Mr. Rath bone asked him—
    "Do you agree with Mr. Colmer, the Managing Director of the Land Company, in his statement that the whole thing was bungled from beginning to end?"
    The Secretary replied—
    "No; I do not agree to that. We did make mistakes. If there was any bungling, it was their own agent who bungled."
    I do not care whether they bungled by the agent of the Land Company or by Mr. Colmer and his paid agents. The experiment was tried under bad circumstances. The people were sent too late. They were thrown into the hands of this
    176
    Land Company, whose land they had to buy. Let the Land Company pay this £336 for administration. I quite agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that when the people have got over all the difficulties they will be better off in Canada than on their crofts in Lewis or Skye. But we hope to make the people better off here as well as in Canada. I have been in Canada, and I know the people have got a very fair future before them; but what I object to is that you should delude these poor people; that you should send them away at the wrong time of the year, and without preparation. When the facts were first related we had the usual official denials. We can no more believe our Scotch officials than the Irish can believe the Irish officials. These persons were not even provided with sufficient clothing, and they suffered in consequence. I maintain that this Board have bungled so much that they ought not to come to us and ask for £336 for administration. They ought to go to the people who have made money by the transaction, and get the money from them. A fair chance was not given to the experiment, but, in consequence of the hurry which characterised the proceedings, destitution, disease, and death hive befallen the people who emigrated. Moreover, not a single acre of land has been added to a croft in the Highlands. If you are simply going to remove people from the Highlands in order to increase the deer forests and grazing lands, I do not think Parliament will vote any more money.
    MR. J. M. MACLEAN:As a Member of the Colonisation Committee I should like to say that sufficient evidence was given before that Committee to throw doubt on the wisdom of the policy of this scheme of emigration, and of the way in which the experiment has been carried out. If this were a grant for the extension of this system of emigration, I should not be prepared to support it. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer has fully explained that the whole policy of this system is now under consideration. The question is in a state of suspense, and the money to which objection is taken is simply to maintain certain machinery of administration, so that the poor people who have gone out may be looked after a

    177
    little better than otherwise they would be. If hon. Members vote against this proposal they will simply be anticipating the Report of the Committee shortly to be presented.
    MR.CALDWELL:I would not have risen but for the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the voluntary contribution of £2,000. The Government agreed to give the sum of £10,000 upon condition that Local Bodies subscribed £2,000. The object was to obtain some evidence of the desire of the people of Scotland to support a system of emigration. How was the money made up in Scotland? First the subscription fell flat, and the whole thing was likely to collapse. In order to get the scheme carried out, certain people, headed by Lord Lothian, subscribed the £2,000. The policy of emigration from the Highlands is disapproved of by the people of Scotland generally, and I venture to say you could not raise voluntarily from the Scottish people £2,000 in aid of a system of emigration.
    MR. A. SUTHERLAND:I beg to substitute £336 for £500 in my Amendment. I am very glad to receive the assurance that no more public money will be spent in extending this scheme. No attempt has been made to meet the point that although these people 4iave been emigrated no relief has been afforded the people who have remained at home. We have often heard of the splendid future before the people who go out to Canada, but such stories will not delude the people of the Highlands. They know that what will most benefit them will be to have the land in their own hands, and they are determined that sooner or later they will have.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed:—
    Whereupon Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £620, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Angus Sutherland.)
    (10.30.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 116.—(Div. List, No. 241.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum not exceeding £46,326 be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment daring the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."
    MR. SCHWANN:I rise to move the reduction of the Vote by £100, and to call the attention of the Committee to the inaction of the Foreign Office in reference to the condition of affairs in Armenia. I have no hesitation in bringing this matter forward, for the state of mis-government by the Turkish officials in Armenia has notoriously reached a crisis. I do not wish to embarrass the Government, but there is a general feeling that, in the answers given to many questions on the subject, the Government have not shown that sympathy with the oppressed Armenians, and have not pressed these matters on the attention of the Porte, as we desire they should. I think we deserve the gratitude of the Government for bringing this subject forward. It will give them the opportunity for making an explicit public statement, and the expression of public opinion evoked in discussion may help to avert the dangers, the possible massacres, that may arise in Armenia, and the re-opening of the whole Eastern question. The hon. Baronet who represents the Foreign Office in this House does not look with favour upon any statements with regard to foreign affairs that appear in the Daily News, and therefore I will quote faom the Times, although that journal is not always to be found on the side of the oppresssd. But, on this question of Armenia, I am glad to claim the Times as an ally. In an article on August 5th, the Times says—
    "The Armenians happen to have presented to the CZAR a petition complaining that their Turkish kinsmen are oppressed and maltreated, and there are fresh rumours of cruelties in the province of Erzeroum. Why should there not be an appeal to the 61st Article of the Berlin Treaty, which entitles the Great Powers to watch over Armenian interests? It is significant that the PORTE has addressed a note to its representatives abroad, giving the official account of the riot in the Armenian Church at Koom Kapo, and exonerating the authorities from all blame. Such apologies will do little to efface the impression that the Armenians have grievances which have been cruelly neglected."

    179
    Now, there is evidence to show that the Times' correspondents, although they are in the habit of giving the public the view that presents itself through the coloured spectacles furnished to them when they leave Printing House Square, and although they are apt to give the information required by their employers rather than actual facts, yet they have come to the conclusion that grievous cruelties and oppressions are inflicted on the Armenians. I quite agree that there should be an appeal to Article 61 of the Berlin Treaty, and that appeal should have been made long since. By that article of the Treaty the Porte undertook to institute administrative reforms in Armenia, and to guarantee the Armenians against cruelties and oppressions from the Circassians and Kurds. It does not require much knowledge to know that the declaration has never been acted upon. We know that the columns of the Press have been filled with telegraphic reports of outrages and cruelties practised upon the Armenians, the carrying off of Armenian women, and acts of robbery and violence, often accompanied by murder, perpetrated by bands of Kurds. Further, the Sublime Porte in that Treaty expressed its intention of maintaining in the province the principles of religious liberty, and declared that religion should be no bar to the discharge of civil functions, that Christians should have full liberty to give evidence before the tribunals, and that freedom to exercise all forms of religious worship should be extended to all the subjects of the Ottoman Empire. All the evidence we have shows that these engagements have never been fulfilled. It may be said that some of the accounts of outrages are of a fictitious character, bat I will point out one or two accounts of which this cannot be said. There are facts well known in connection with the search for arms in the church at Erzeroum and the riot which ensued between the 18th and 20th of June. I have it on the authority of the correspondent of the Vienna Presse, an independent journal, that anonymous communications were made to several officers at Erzeroum, indicating that certain documents of a treasonable character were to be found in a special church mentioned. At first no notice
    180
    was taken of these communications, but one was finally sent to Constantinople, and at the instance, it is said, of the Sultan, the church was searched, to the great irritation of the Armenians, and caused an amount of ill-feeling which, increasing day by day, broke out into an émeute, on the 20th of June, when a barbarous scene was enacted, the Bashi-Bazouks and Gendarmerie shooting down and massacreing a great number of persons in the town of Erzeroum. Then we have various accounts of outrages committed upon Armenians at Alashguerd, early in May, and, in consequence, a number of Armenians, following the advice and leading of their bishop, determined to migrate over the Persian frontier. On their march the Armenians were followed by the Gendarmerie, forced to return, many were beaten, and the bishop was subjected to the greatest indignities and thrown into prison. Eventually he was sent to Constantinople, where I believe he is now in prison. Again, on June 15 (this account is from a correspondent of the Daily News), there is an account of how a band of Kurds plundered an Armenian village, at Julash in the province of Sivas, and carried off some sheep. A number of Armenians followed the thieves, a conflict ensued, in which one of the Armenians was killed, and the sheep were recovered. Subsequently, these Armenian peasants were again attacked, and one of them, Madiros Kricor, expired from the horrible mutilations to which he was subjected. Again, on August 2nd, in the Daily News, here is an account of an attempt made by a band of Kurds to carry off a newly married woman, and in the affray two Armenians and six Kurds were killed. That looks as if the Armenians in that instance were pretty well able to take care of themselves. But then the telegram goes on to state that a force of 200 or 300 military was sent to the village, and many Armenians were made prisoners. What the result will be it is not difficult to imagine. The Times now says, that there are "fresh rumours of cruelties" coming from Erzeroum, though that is a mild way of stating the case. I may refer to the case of Moussa Bey. As we all know, he was put upon his trial and acquitted, and it was only the strong representations made by the German Ambassador, and possibly the

    181
    British Ambassador, prevented Moussa Bey's promotion to a higher office. Owing chiefly to the representations of the German Ambassador, Moussa Bey awaits a second trial, but it must not be imagined that, though a prisoner at Constantinople, he is in durance vile. A charming villa is at his disposal, on the Hellespont, and his solitude is cheered by the presence of the fair sex provided for that purpose. From all appearances Moussa Bey is treated more like an honoured guest at Constantinople than a man under a criminal charge. There can be no denial of these outrages, they are matters of history. The responsibility for much of what has occurred rests on the Great Powers, who have shown great supineness, and especially on Great Britain. We have a special Convention with the Turkish Government, the Cyprus Convention—and it is our special duty to protect and defend Armenia. Now the old practice was for the Turkish Government to enconrage the Kurds to come down from the mountain regions, and settle or squat on the lands of the Armenian Christians. Then, after a time, the Kurds made a claim to the land, they suborned witnesses, their evidence was accepted by the Courts, and gradually the Armenians sank into the condition of serfs. The present policy of the Turks seems to be to exterminate the Armenians entirely, and a recent telegram states that the Turkish Government have furnished Martini-Henry rifles to the Kurds in the Armenian districts. The House of Commons ought to insist upon having a very clear explanation of what steps have been taken to put pressure on the Porte. The émeute which recently occurred at the Armenian church of Koom Kapo in Constantinople shows that the Armenians are determined to protect their liberties to the last, and that they despair of obtaining redress by constitutional means. The present Armenian Patriarch seems to be somewhat of a pedant, and does not take that strong view his predecessor did as to his duty to protect not only the religious but the civil rights of his people. The Armenian race have a long history, and a strong feeling of nationality; but if they are treated in a reasonable manner by the Turks they will remain loyal subjects of
    182
    the Sultan. The only result of our refusing to protect them will be to drive the people into the arms of Russia. The Russian domestic administration does not, perhaps, present a very high model for the Turks to follow, but there is no doubt that their treatment of border races is, in some respects, better even than our own. It arises, perhaps, from the fact that not being a very civilised race it is easy for them to correct the first faults of rising but semi-civilised nationalities. The Armenians at the present time furnish many officers and officials to the Turkish Government, including the Finance Minister and the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. A large number are also in the service of Russia. What is the reform the Armenians will be satisfied with? Because that is a question which the British Government ought to be able to insist upon. The existing laws, as far as they go, which guide the tribunals before which Christians should be brought, are borrowed, to a large extent, from the Code Napoleon. That is all very well, but it is well known that the Turks refuse to try Christians by the Code set apart for them, and will not receive the evidence of Christians. If a change could be made in the Governor of Armenia, if they could have Armenian Governors, they would be perfectly satisfied to have Turkish sub-Governors. Another useful reform would be the establishment of a local gendarmerie, raised among the sedentary Armenian population, which could be officered by soldiers from some neutral nation, say from Belgium or Switzerland. At any rate, I believe the interest and duty of this country is clear—namely, that we should do all in our power to bring about reform in the government of these provinces; and I hope the Committee will have a satisfactory explanation from the hon. Baronet as to the measures taken by Lord Salisbury's Government for the protection of the Armenians.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That Item A, Salaries, be reduced by £100, part of the Salary of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."—(Mr. Schwann.)
    MR. LEVESON-GOWER:I rise to second the Motion for the reduction of the

    183
    Vote. In the first place, I think some protest is necessary against the practice of putting off Estimates to so late a period of the Session. In the second place, I wish to emphasize the remarks of my hon. Friend with regard to the lamentable condition of the Christian population of these provinces which have the misfortune to be still under Turkish rule. I enter upon the discussion in no partisan spirit, for I know what delicacy is needed in carrying on diplomatic negotiations, and how much the plans of Ministers may be embarrassed by indiscreet pressure brought to bear upon them at critical times. I will go further, and say that I recognise on the part of the Government a desire for a better administration in the Asiatic provinces of Turkey. I am, however, doubtful whether that desire has been expressed strongly enough to convey to the mind of the Sublime Porte the feeling that Her Majesty's Government is in earnest in the matter, or whether their action has not been prompted by the consideration that it is better "to let sleeping dogs lie." It may be asked what measures I would advise to put a stop to the present state of things. In that connection I would point to the eminently satisfactory result of the Dulcigno demonstration during the second Administration of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, whereby many of the provisions of the Treaty of Berlin were enforced. In this case it would not be so difficult to carry out such a demonstration, because, instead of having six Powers to combine, a cordial understanding with Russia would be sufficient to bring the Turks to their senses, and to remedy the disastrous state of things in Turkey. I know the right hon. Baronet the Under Secretary is very unwilling to take evidence from the public Press. He generally tells us that he has had no information, or that he is unable to get satisfactory information as to the reports of atrocities published in the Press. I am afraid the hon. Baronet does not show sufficient anxiety to get information. I will not, however, trouble him with many quotations from the Press, but I will refer him to only one or two passages in the Blue Book 1 of 1890, and will merely draw attention to the fact that one among the many grievances of the Christian population is a change which
    184
    has been made in the abolition of the protection formerly given them. Sometime ago they were living under the protection of the Beys of the country, in return for which protection certain dues and services were exacted from them. Since that feudal system was abolished they have been deprived of the protection of these Mussulmans, and exposed to the depredations of Kurds, Circassians, and other wild, nomadic tribes, but at the same time their old masters still exacted the contribution from them, so that they had to pay practically a double tax, and yet got no protection from either party. Another point mentioned in the Blue Book was the fear of the villagers to come forward and lay complaints before the local authorities, because they felt that they would not get justice and would lay themselves open to the speedy retribution of the Kurdish chieftains. As a remedy for that, and no doubt through the efforts of the representative of Her Majesty's Government, one of the chief offenders, Moussa Bey, a Kurdish chief, was nominally put on his trial at Constantinople. He was a Kurdish chief of great power and influence, and had previously been an official of the Turkish Government. There were 10 charges of the gravest character brought against him, including charges of violation, murder, arson, burglary, cattle lifting, robbery, and extorting money by violence. That would seem to be enough. There was a great parade made of the fairness with which the trial was to be conducted. They said they would pay the expenses of the Christian witnesses, and that in every respect the trial of Moussa Bey should be a fair and just trial. To obtain an idea of how this trial was condncted I will refer the Committee to a Despatch in the Blue Book of Sir William White to the Marquess of Salisbury in reference to it. At the conclusion of the trial Sir William pointed out to Lord Salisbury the irregularities that took place in the trial. He divided them into three heads. The first was, that during the proceedings Moussa Bey seemed to be most courteously treated, and to be received as a distinguished guest rather than a man accused of the gravest crimes, whilst the Armenian prosecutors and witnesses were treated with contumely. The second point was that, after Moussa Bey was committed,

    185
    he was allowed to remain at liberty, instead of being placed under arrest; and the third point was that the position taken up by the public prosecutor savoured rather of that of a lawyer for the defence than a prosecutor on behalf of the Government. After that it is scarcely necessary to say anything more of the unfair and disgraceful character of this trial, which has now practically resulted in Moussa Bey's acquittal. Another trial was promised, but it has not yet taken place, and at the present time the man is at liberty in Constantinople. I only desire to say, in conclusion, that great hopes have been based by the right hon. Baronet some time ago on the appointment of Raouf Pasha to the government of Bitlis, but the massacre that has recently taken place at Erzeroum shows that the present state of things in the province is far from satisfactory. I venture very earnestly to urge on the Government the necessity and the policy of making strong representations to the Porte to the effect that, unless reforms such as those which have been indicated by the hon. Member for Manchester are granted and vigorously carried out, it would certainly receive no further countenance or support from them. We are bound, not only by the 61st Article of the Treaty of Berlin, but also by the Anglo-Turkish Convention, to watch over the safety and welfare of the Armenian subjects of the Porte. These people are losing faith in any prospect of redress at the hands of Europe, and if some action is not promptly taken they will either break out in a premature insurrection, to be quenched in torrents of blood, or they will invoke the assistance of the Russian troops which have been massed upon the frontier—a step that must cause much more extensive complications than any that could result from the interference of the English Foreign Office.
    MR. LABOUCHERE:I think it is sufficiently plain that mis-government in Armenia is a necessary consequence of the Turkish rule, and that as long as the Turks are there there must be mis-government in that country. I would venture to point out to the House what the position in Armenia really is. The Kurds, who form the majority of the population in the province of
    186
    Armenia, dwell in the mountains, whence they raid the peaceful Armenian villages in the plains. Generally speaking, the Armenians submit to this sort of thing and pay a sort of ransom to mitigate it. In fact, it is very much like what used to happen in the Highlands and Lowlands of Scotland, when the Highland Clans made raids upon the Lowland cattle. When the oppression of the Kurds becomes too great to bear the Armenians rebel against it. The Kurds are Mahomedans, and the Armenians are Christians. Upon the Kurds the Turkish Government counts for the maintenance of its sway in the country, and as a consequence no Turkish Pasha could, oppose the Kurds. They are a body of irregular cavalry, very useful to the Turks when the Turks themselves are attacked. Therefore, as long as the Turkish Government is paramount in Armenia the Armenians will be oppressed by the Kurds. Representations of this country are of little use. They have been made again and again, with no satisfactory result. It is very desirable that the representations which have been made should be laid before the House and before the Governments of Europe. We have never had them; but I think we ought to have them. Let me ask, who is responsible for what takes place in Armenia I think that, to a certain extent, both sides of the House—the labe Liberal Government as well as the present Conservative Government—are responsible for the results of the Turkish sway in Armenia. But of late the Liberals have not taken so strong a view as the Conservatives, and unquestionably when Lord Salisbury was in power during the Turko-Russian War he, who was one of the prime movers in the San Stefano Treaty and in the occupation of Cyprus as a guarantee for Turkish rule in Asia Minor, was really responsible for what took place. What we ought to do is to declare openly that we can no longer adhere to the Cyprus Convention, and that we do not recognise any obligation to defend Asia Minor if it should be attacked. If Russia chooses to attack the country we should look on and let Turkey and Russia fight it out between themselves. The fact is that whenever you have a Christian population under the foot of the Turk that population has been, and will continue to

    187
    be, oppressed. I think it would be useless to make any representation whatever to Turkey unless we clearly tell the Turks in plain and determined language that we will have nothing whatever to do with Asia Minor, but will leave the Russians and Turks to fight the matter out by themselves. I am no admirer of Russian rule; but I say that when we compare the Turkish rule in Armenia with Russian rule in Asia Minor the difference is as between civilisation and the absence of civilisation. Under the circumstances, I do hope that the only representation to the Turkish Government will be such as I have suggested.
    MR. BUCHANAN:I am rather inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Northampton. I had hoped that the Under Secretary would have risen at once to reply, for I have to touch on other subjects than Armenia. As regards that subject I think, considering the result of our remonstrances year after year, we ought to make it perfectly clear, as I believe it has been more or less indicated by the right hon. Gentleman, that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government not to consider themselves bound by the Anglo-Turkish Convention in regard to the defence of Armenia and Macedonia. This has been stated with some slight ambiguity, but I think it ought to be made quite clear. I should like to make a few other observations that arise out of other matters in connection with this Vote. The hon. Member for Stoke has alluded to the fact that we are imperfectly supplied with information, and that, I think, may be considered a general complaint in relation to foreign affairs.
    THE CHAIRMAN:An Amendment having been moved in relation to a specific subject it would be more convenient for the Committee to dispose of that branch of the question first.
    MR. BUCHANAN:Certainly, Sir. I only rose because nobody else did.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR:I hope that we shall have some definite statement from the righthon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and that there will be no trace, as there has been in his earlier utterances on this matter, of the suggestion that he is the official apologist for the
    188
    Turkish administration. Certainly, many of his utterances in the past have been more like those of a Turkish official than of a British Minister. I trust we shall have an assurance that a definite proposal will be made to the Turkish Government with regard to the reforms suggested for Armenia. The hon. Member for Northampton has spoken of the relations of the Kurds and Armenians in the neighbourhood of Erzeroum, Van, and Tiflis, and seemed to suppose that wherever Christians come into contact with Moslems in these districts they must necessarily take the lower position and be the victims of Moslem oppression. But it has not always been so, and I think that if a settlement were instituted in Armenia, similar to that which has been so eminently successful in the Lebanon, there could be no question of a successful administration there also. It is true that the Armenians are oppressed by the Kurds, but the Armenians are among the best soldiery in the world, and there is no reason why they should submit to the atrocities of the Kurds. Many of the soldiers of Russia are Armenians, and I have been informed that, within 48 hours' march of the Turkish frontier, there are seven Russian divisions, largely composed of Armenians; and many officers of distinction and high rank in the Russian service are Armenians. The spiritual head of the Armenian Church is also a Russian subject, and he has recently sent an Archimandrite to St. Petersburg to invoke the protection of Russia. It is nonsense for the Government to shut their eyes to facts which are patent to everybody else. I do not agree that it is a matter of no importance to us whether the Russians go into Armenia or not. The presence of the Russian Forces on the upper waters of the Tigris and the Euphrates would have a considerable moral effect on India and other countries in the East. That is a subject which is worthy of the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. There is one proposal which might be made. Why should not the Government suggest to the Porte the appointment of a Vali, who would himself be an Armenian, for the Armenian districts? Such an officer should be left free to choose as his subordinate officers competent men determined to do their duty fairly and pro-

    189
    tect their countrymen against the predatory incursions of the Kurds from the mountains. If nothing is done, the difficulty will go on increasing until Russia, with the consent of the whole of Christendom, will cross the frontier and do that which this country might do much more effectually and speedily, and which ought to be done by a country which is a signatory to the Treaty of Berlin. I hope that a definite proposal will be made by Her Majesty's Government to the Turkish Government, and that they will back that proposal up by such language and demeanour as will show to the Porte that the time has come for some definite steps to be taken.
    SIR R. FOWLER:I agree with very many of the observations which have been made, but we must consider what our position is at Constantinople. Formerly, in the days of Lord Palmerston and Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, we were prepared to fight for Turkey, but I apprehend that those days have gone by; in that I agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite. Therefore, the British Government stand in a different position at Constantinople from that in which they stood 30 years ago. The Turks know well enough that they are not likely to be backed up by England in a future war, and that being the case, I do not see how our Representative can put very much pressure on the Turks in a situation of this kind. I am sure that the Government and our distinguished Representative at Constantinople have done all that is in their power, but a country which is not prepared to go to war for another is in a very different position with regard to that country from that which it held in a time when it was prepared to make the greatest sacrifices for it. The House ought to bear in mind we are not in the position we formerly occupied, and it is, therefore, the duty of the British Government and of its Representatives to act with great caution.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON:I delayed rising to reply because my doing so would be of little use while several Members desired to address the Committee on the subjects embraced in my reply. The hon. Member for Stoke has referred to the late date at which the
    190
    Vote comes on, suggesting that, on that account, important questions do not receive the attention they deserve; but it must be remembered that the discussion of foreign affairs is not confined to this Vote. Many hon. Members availed themselves of the opportunities afforded by the Diplomatic and Consular Vote, and also by the Vote on Account; and this is, therefore, neither the first nor the second occasion on which these questions have been discussed. Attention has now been called to incidents which have occurred in the provinces of the Turkish Empire. It is a most lamentable thing that at this day incidents should occur which have called forth expressions of sympathy and indignation throughout the civilised world. I altogether repudiate the imputations of indifference that have been made upon myself. I feel as keenly as any Member of the House when I read accounts of cruelty and wrong; but whilst I feel keenly it is quite another thing to adopt statements hastily and jump at conclusions, without independent and official confirmation, and to base upon them extreme conclusions, when international interests are at stake. The hon. Member for Stoke spoke of my being sceptical of newspaper accounts, and appearing to be indifferent because I possess no official information of occurrences reported in the papers. It is far from the fact that I have been indifferent. But over and over again hon. Members have asked me whether I had any information of events which were only just reported by telegraph in the newspapers as having occurred a day or two before. It is, of course, impossible that I could have received official information, because it is absolutely necessary that the representatives of the British Government should make careful inquiries into these rumours so as to make only authentic reports for the information of the Government, and not simply repeat bazaar rumours. Again and again statements have appeared in newspapers which have turned out on inquiry to be absolutely unfounded or grossly exaggerated. Not long ago there was a statement of an alleged massacre at a certain place, and that turned out to be altogether a mistake. There was a report of a sanguinary affray in Decem-

    191
    ber last; it turned out to be a trifling disturbance arising out of the non-payment of taxes. Reference has just been made to a story that Kurds were being armed with martini rifles. The Vice-Consul on the spot was able to make inquiry, and has reported that the story is not only untrue but so absurd as to be received with ridicule. The hon. Member for Stoke takes an intelligent and hereditary interest in these subjects and said truly that they ought not to be discussed in a party spirit; and I am glad to bear my testimony to the disposition of hon. Members opposite to approach them in a non-party spirit. When it comes to the practical question of what measures ought to be adopted to bring about better government in the Turkish provinces, and when another Dulcigno demonstration is suggested, I must say I doubt very much the expediency of repeating such a demonstration. I think it would be very disturbing and impotent. Then the hon. Member said it would be well if the British Ambassador would join with the Ambassadors of other Powers in making representations to the Porte and endeavour to secure the institution of reforms. While the hon. Member was speaking my right hon. Friend near me (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) said he was special Ambassador at Constantinople at the time, and he remembered going in the same carriage with the Russian Ambassador to the Porte to make representations. The other day, after the occurrences at Erzeroum, the British Ambassador made representations at the Porte that certain measures ought to be adopted in order to save the inhabitants of Erzeroum; and his recommendations were immediately adopted. This action on his part is only an example of the course usually adopted whenever it is seen that representations are likely to be attended with good effect. As to Moussa Bey's trial, I make a present of it to the hon. Gentleman. Sir W. White has expressed his opinion in forcible terms of the plain injustice that took place in that trial, and the absence of vigour on the part of the Public Prosecutor, and the apparent passivity of still higher authorities; but what has been the result of the failure of justice in that case? One of
    192
    the Ministers of the Porte was dismissed, the Minister of Justice, and another person appointed in his place. That, I think, will show that the action if our Ambassador has not been sluggish where representation or remonstrance seemed proper and might be made with effect. But, turning from those points, I must say some language has been used in the course of the speeches which, to say the least, is unfortunate. The hon. Member for North Manchester used language prompting subjects of the Porte to insurrection. That, I submit, is an incitement greatly to be deprecated. Hon. Members have expressed doubt and scepticism as to the efficiency of the action of certain officers of the Porte. I believe, on the contrary, there has been general desire on the part of the Porte to appoint efficient officers. It has been the constant advice of Her Majesty's representatives that honest administrators should be sent to those districts, as being the best way in an Asiatic country of doing away with disorder. I am glad to be able to refer with commendation to the work done by one of those officers—namely, Raouf Pasha. The despatches testify to his honest administration, one gentleman interested in the Armenian provinces of Turkey, writing to our Ambassador bears strong testimony to the firmness and justice of Raouf Pasha's administration, and says that whenever men charged with murder are brought to the Court, Raouf Pasha goes to the Court to see that justice is done. In other places in the despatches similar testimony is given, and I believe that in several districts there has been improved administration. But there is not the slightest doubt that in that country there is a great deal which is very unsatisfactory. Notwithstanding that there have been many examples made of those who committed raids on the innocent population, there have been many acts of brutal cruelty, and continual descents of the turbulent population of the mountains on that of the plains, and so it would be until adequate and disciplined forces are properly directed to punish speedily the aggressors. Still, it would be an injustice to say that the Porte and the officers of the Porte have not done much better than in former times; they have

    193
    shown a desire to stand well before the world, and also a desire, which I honestly believe, is entertained by the Sultan and his Ministers, to prevent injustice and terminate disorder. The hon. Member for Donegal indicated a plan by which he thought better government could be established in that part of the world. There is this great difficulty in appointing an Armenian Governor to one of those provinces, and that is that the Christian population are generally in a minority, and certainly the Armenians are in a minority. It is hardly possible to conceive in a country where the Government is Mahomedan that they can put a Christian Governor in provinces in which the Mahomedans are really in a majority. That seems a suggestion which can hardly be made with a prospect of good result. But fair and honest men, such as are in my experience to be found among the Moslems, and who will punish injustice and outrage whenever it occurs, can do much to improve the conditions of the Armenians. As to the occurrences which have taken place at Erzeroum and Constantinople, I do not think the hon. Member for Manchester gave an accurate description of them. I do not quarrel with him on that score, because he is not in possession of official information, and the source he has quoted from was not correct.
    MR. SCHWANN:It was the Times.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON:The Government have most careful and detailed accounts from the Consul at Erzeroum, who was himself an eye-witness of what occurred, and they know that the Governor did exert himself with praiseworthy energy to stop the riots, and that the troops exercised great self-control under considerable provocation. It was owing to the steps taken by the Governor that these disturbances were not very much worse. Here I must excuse myself for having spoken with some warmth in consequence of the somewhat incendiary language used by the hon. Member for Manchester with reference to risings, bloodshed, revolution, and so forth. Unfortunately, there are revolutionary movements in connection with these events, to which these disturbances were largely due. A document has lately been published
    194
    in Constantinople, and many thousand copies have been circulated, urging Armenians to revolution and to rise and annihilate the persons opposed to the work of revolution. If that be the best advice the Armenian Committees can give to their fellow subjects, I am afraid we cannot approach the Porte with much hope of receiving concessions
    MR. SCHWANN:I said distinctly that the Armenians would be a perfectly loyal people if measures were taken for heir protection.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON:I am in the recollection of the Committee, and I am afraid I cannot withdraw the charge I have made against the hon. Gentleman if using language calculated to incite to disturbance. He certainly pointed to bloodshed and violence as the too probable result of what was going on.
    MR. SCHWANN:That is quite misstating what I said. I said the Armenians were perfectly determined to revolt if their reasonable requirements were not met. I said they would revolt, a crisis which I wished to avert. Those were my first remarks.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON:I should be sorry to misrepresent the hon. Member, but I venture to say that such expectations are not likely to be beneficial, and that the very worst service to the Armenians would be to induce the Turkish Government to think that revolutionary movements are likely to arise. It was such faults as that of the Armenian Committee of Constantinople which led to the search for arms in the church at Erzeroum, and was the beginning of all these disorders. Let us, by all means, do what we can as the friend and old ally of the Ottoman Government to urge on it the adoption of measures which will prevent these sad disorders, and induce greater confidence amongst its Christian subjects. I do not think we have gone to war from sentimental considerations. We have gone to war on behalf of British and European and world-wide interests——
    An hon. MEMBER:The Crimean War.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON:Yes; I say so of the Crimean War. I venture to think that neither by using unmeasured language of reproof, nor by ignore-

    195
    ing the great difficulties under which the Turkish Government lies, nor by refusing to recognise the efforts it has made towards reform of late years, shall we introduce that state of things which the Government are as desirous as any Members of the House shall be brought about.
    MR. BRYCE:I think the tone adopted by the Under Secretary this evening is certainly more conciliatory, and in many respects more likely to bring about a general union of feeling on these subjects, than the tone he generally adopts, and I am, therefore, glad to see it. I think he cannot complain of what was said by the hon. Gentleman who preceded him, because it is in the recollection of the House that in the Debates we have had on this subject the right hon. Gentleman's attitude has almost always been apologetic, as if he always had in mind that his speech was going to be read in translation at Constantinople. He has talked in a better strain to-night. He admits that the condition of Constantinople is lamentable, though he lapses back. He talks of our "ancient ally," but we have had very little reason to be proud of the alliance of late years. Still, I think he has taken a line which we may look upon as an earnest of better things. As to the censure cast upon my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, I would say he expressed no approval of insurrection. He said that nothing but insurrection could be expected from the way in which the Porte has governed its subjects, and I think the same conclusion must have been come to by every one who has studied the history of events in Armenia and Bulgaria. I think the Committee has some reason to complain of the scanty information given by the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think it his duty to keep the House in darkness. Very few Papers have been produced, and none covering the period from 1881 to 1888, and when we have endeavoured to elicit facts, the right hon. Gentleman has in many cases refused to make inquiry, and in others has confined himself to throwing doubt on the statements made. I should have thought that if the right hon. Gentleman and the Government were really anxious
    196
    to make a proper impression on the mind of Turkey they would rather have dwelt on the strong language occasionally used in this House. They would have been able to say to Turkey, "You see the impression produced on the mind of Parliament and on Western Europe," and they would have been able to address to the Porte warnings far more emphatic than if the pressure of public opinion in England were not behind them. Everyone knows that the state of these provinces is one of continued oppression, and therefore I will not go over again what has been said by my two hon. Friends; but I must say a word about Erzeroum. The right hon. Baronet has quoted certain facts from a Report he has received, but he omitted to state the most material facts of the case. The riot at Erzeroum arose from a search by Turkish troops in an Armenian church. Such a thing has never been heard of in Armenia as the concealment of arms in a place of worship, because it is believed by the people that such an act would be a desecration of a sacred building. However, in consequence of some anonymous statements made in Constantinople an order for the search was made. The Turkish soldiers went into the church and took up the Communion vessels, and turned the chalice upside down; one of them, it is alleged, standing on the altar. That was an act which, in the minds not only of Eastern Christians but of all good Christians, amounted to a shocking profanation. These statements have been made to me on ample authority, and I think that these incidents ought to have been alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman and that he should have endeavoured to account for them. According to the accounts I have received, the reason why so much loss of life occurred was that the mob, chiefly composed of Turkish soldiers, fell upon the Christian quarter, robbed the shops, and murdered many Christians. That is a very different account to that the right hon. Gentleman has given. He says the Turks are showing signs of improvement. I am glad to hear that Raouf Pasha is a better Governor than most Turks would be, and it is some gain that he should be now in power at Tiflis, but there are many districts where no such improvement

    197
    has been introduced, and the right hon. Gentleman will hardly deny that there has seldom been a moment in recent years when the condition of Armenia has been more dangerous and alarming than it is at the present moment. According to the accounts I have received, the state of the country is such that the people dare not go out to cultivate their fields for fear of the excited Mussulman population. If it is true that so much can be done by the appointment of better Governors, why is that remedy not more often put into force? A better illustration, however, of the want of good faith on the part of the Turkish Government could not be found than that which is afforded in the trial of Moussa Bey. The right hon. Gentleman said he would make a present of that case to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke. When he said that, did he reflect on the circumstances of that case? Here is a man who has been the scourge of the whole countryside for many years, every one of whose steps is marked by robbery, outrage, and murder, sometimes accompanied by hideous cruelty, by the carrying off of women, by cattle lifting, and by the burning of the peasants' houses. The Sultan summons him to Constantinople, and receives him with every honour. The right hon. Gentleman said the Public Prosecutor acted with plenty of vigour. He certainly did act with plenty of vigour, but all his vigour was employed on behalf of Moussa Bey, and it was owing to his exertions that Moussa Bey was acquitted. Sir William White, whose sympathies for the Christian population none will doubt, remonstrated against the failure of justice in the case, but nothing has been done from that time to this. Moussa Bey is allowed to go free about Constantinople, and the knowledge that he is free has, of course, permeated through to Armenia and has encouraged the participators in his crimes to perpetrate similar outrages. Therefore, an instance like this, where the sins of the offender are clear, and the offender is nevertheless allowed to go free, is not only evidence of what the sympathies of the Turkish Government are, but is also the strongest encouragement to other offenders of the same kind. I now desire to ask what is intended to be done?
    198
    It is time we tried to give some practical character to these often repeated discussions. We first ought to ask the Government what they have done. It is not enough to give us vague assurances as to remonstrances having been addressed to the Turkish Government. We desire to know what is the language used in such remonstrances, so as to see whether it adequately represents the feelings of this country. I hope, therefore, Her Majesty's Government will produce not merely the Despatches of our Consul General and of Sir William White, but also the Despatches of Lord Salisbury to Sir William White, so that it may be seen whether the language used is of just and proper severity. There are two courses which may be suggested to the Government to take. One course would be to endeavour to get the Great Powers to join with this country in more effective remonstrances. Some attempt of this kind was, I believe, made by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer when at Constantinople some years ago. Since then ten years have elapsed. The condition of Armenia has grown worse, the danger to the Turkish Government has become more imminent. Ample opportunity for reform has been afforded, and it is a question whether the time has not now come when this country should make a solemn appeal to the Great Powers of Europe to join us in addressing an earnest remonstrance to Turkey. If the Great Powers refuse, our hands will at least be clean. It ought to be borne in mind that we are under solemn engagements in this matter. We have taken these Eastern Christians from the protection of Russia by the Treaty of San Stefano, and under these circumstances we ought to make a solemn appeal to the signatory Powers to put pressure on the Turkish Government in order to bring about a permanent improvement. The second course that may be adopted is to proceed under the Turkish Convention. The right hon. Gentleman in a Debate some time ago referred to it as a "lapsed Convention." I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have warned Turkey that they consider this Convention to be "lapsed," and that they consider the obligations of this country under that Convention are

    199
    over, owing to the failure of Turkey to fulfil her part of the bargain. That is a method of putting pressure on the Turkish Government which ought to be tried. Her Majesty's Government may also point out to the Turkish Government the fatal policy it is pursuing. The Porte may fairly be reminded of the case of Bulgaria, which has since become independent, and be told that the insurrection and other events in that country are likely to repeat themselves in Armenia. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) said he wished Russia would take Armenia. Well, the Government of Russia is, in this matter at any rate, infinitely better than that of Turkey. Nothing that has occurred in the Caucasian provinces of Russia is comparable with the outrages of Moussa Bey and his confederates. Whether it would be dangerous to bring Russia into such close proximity with Palestine, what would be the effect on India, and other considerations of that kind, I will not now discuss. At any rate, Her Majesty's Government and their supporters would consider it a misfortune if Russia took Armenia, and, therefore, it is their duty to take steps by which such an event may be averted. These outrages are making the people of Armenia turn to Russia. They will, sooner or later, lead to an insurrection, and then to a Russian occupation. It is practically certain that within a few years Russia will occupy Armenia if efficient measures of reform are not adopted in the meanwhile. An hon. Member has referred to Macedonia. For the state of things there the Turkish Government are not so directly responsible, but it is scarcely less shocking. The condition of the prisons is a disgrace to humanity, and all life and property are insecure. We must all remember with what difficulty at more than one moment during the last five years peace has been preserved in Eastern Europe. Events in Armenia or Macedonia may lead to a general conflagration. Therefore, in the interests of peace and of humanity, find in the interest of the maintenance of the present equilibrium, I appeal to the Government to take some more decided step than they have yet taken, either by appealing to Europe, or by acting upon the Turkish Convention, with the object of remedying the evils which at present exist.
    MR. CONYBEARE:The hon. Member for Aberdeen has appealed to the Government to take some action to secure a practical outcome of what would otherwise be a mere academic discussion. It is, however, open to question whether any amount of earnest appeal on the part of the Powers of Europe would have the least effect in changing the Turk. I do not myself believe there is any more probability of improving the morality of the Turk, as far as his treatment of Christian populations is concerned, than there is of changing the leopard's spots or washing the blackamoor white. I have the greatest contempt for all these diplomatic approaches to individuals of the type of the Sultan or his governors or advisers. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen has pointed out, in the notorious case of Moussa Bey the representations addressed to the Porte have been treated with the most sublime indifference, if not with contempt. Let us have done with all this humbug. After all the advice that has been given him the Turk is as bad now as he was a generation ago, and he will remain as bad till the end of time. In the Indian Empire the Moslem and Hindoo live together in perfect concord and amity, and, as far as I can see, the only reason why we cannot say the same of the people in Armenia is that in that country the population is controlled and governed by barbarians who have no idea of proper administration and no thought but to maintain the grossest injustice and tyranny at the expense of the unarmed Christian peasantry. In order to get rid of the source of all the friction and difficulty you must get rid of the barbarian Turk. The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary has applied the usual amount of Ministerial whitewash to his old friends and allies the Turks. That is the usual course of right hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial Bench. It is what they are paid for.
    Mr. KERANS Mr. KERANS rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put;" but the CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. CONYBEARE:We who are not in such a responsible position as that of the right hon. Gentleman may be permitted to have a freer range in dealing with these questions. The right hon. Gentleman was greatly concerned at our jeering about the Turks, and said he did not think we believed any good of anybody. That is quite true as far as Turks and Tories are concerned. We are not surprised that the Tories should do all they can to back up the enormities of the Turks. We are charged with inciting the Armenians to rebellion. That has always been the taunt levelled against those who venture to express sympathy with a down-trodden race. I am rebel enough by nature to be anxious to see every down-trodden population rebel against the tyrants who oppress them. But we say there is no occasion for us to incite the Armenians to rebellion any more than there was any necessity a short time ago to incite the Cretans to rebellion against the enormities of the Turks. The right hon. Gentleman cannot deny that constant cruelty and atrocity of every kind are being committed in Armenia by the representatives of the Porte, and if that is not sufficient to incite to rebellion I cannot understand what amount of encouragement from outside could induce the people to get up an insurrection. Then we have heard of the best means of curing these abuses. I look with interest to that Bench, who are responsible for the honest and firm administration in the shape of the Caddells and Clifford Lloyds and Plunketts, to know what kind of honest and firm administration they will propose for acceptance by the unspeakable Turk. I suggest to right hon. Gentlemen that they should look to their own house at home and clear out some of their own administrators, and then they may be in a position to press on the Turks some administrator who may do better than Moussa Bey. One would suppose, judging by the language of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that the Pasha set over Armenia was a paragon of virtue; that Armenia was a perfect paradise, and
    202
    that the people had nothing to complain of but their own evil passions. It is the old story. We are led to believe that all the reports in the Press are exaggerations, and that nothing but what finds its way into the Blue Books can be true. But I am inclined to believe the statements of impartial observers who describe in plain terms, without the official gloss which invariably finds its way into the Blue Books, the events which are taking place in that part of the world. I am not one of those who are in the least in favour of this country entering into rash participation in an interference with the difficulties which the Porte has got into with its subjects. I do not consider that this country is in the least degree under any obligation to intervene for the protection of the Armenians against their oppressors the Turks. We have got quite enough to do in Ireland, and in other parts of our own Empire. It is very possible certain obligations were entered into by a former Minister, who effected what he called Peace with Honour, under a certain Instrument called the Berlin Treaty, but I pay very little regard to those obligations. The best thing is to permit Russia to undertake the duty which she is quite capable of undertaking, namely, of freeing these Eastern populations from the outrages of the Turks. I observed that hon. gentlemen opposite resented the suggestion that Russian administration was in any degree better than the administration of the Turks. I do not pretend to have any personal experience, but I am informed by a gentleman who has travelled in those parts that while it is perfectly safe and comfortable to travel in Russian Armenia, it is absolutely unsafe to travel in that part of Armenia which is still under the heel of the Turk. The hon. Member for Aberdeen has pointed out that we took away from Russia the power of interference on behalf of the Armenians, and it is for that reason the hon. Member has appealed to the Government to make a solemn appeal to the great Powers to interfere on behalf of the Armenians. I should prefer to look upon it in this light. As we took away from the Armenians the only protector which was capable of standing up for them—Russia

    203
    —it is our bounden duty now to remedy matters, and to get, or, at any rate, to do our best to get, the Great Powers to sanction such interference as Russia, if she still desires to do so, may be disposed to offer on behalf of the Christians of Armenia.
    MR. CHANNING:I wish to ask, before the discussion terminates, a question on a special matter which has not been touched upon in this Debate The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps remember that when this subject was discussed earlier in the Session I drew attention to a Memorial which has been laid before the Porte on the part of the Patriarch of the Armenians and the Ecclesiastics of the Armenian Church. In that Memorial complaints were made as to the withdrawal of the privileges of the Ecclesiastical Courts in determining questions of inheritance, marriage, &c., and also as to the interference of the Porte through its officials with the publication and reprinting of various books for religious services, as well as historical and other books connected with the maintenance of their nationality and history. The question has recently been again brought before the Porte by the Patriarch of the Armenians, but the Grand Vizier, or other official concerned, has refused to remove the cause of complaint. The question I then put to the right hon. Gentleman was, whether the Government could, through their Representative at Constantinople, support the representations of the Armenian Church, but the right hon. Gentleman gave me no reply. I think it only right on this occasion, the last occasion of the Session, to press for some answer as to whether Her Majesty's Representative has supported the claim of the Armenians to a recognition of that part of their nationality which is the most endeared to them, and to which they cling most keenly, namely, the maintenance of their religious life, and historical traditions, and for the preservation of the books relating to
    204
    them. I hope that strong representations have been made by Sir William White in support of the demand of the Armenians. I do not agree with an hon. Member who has said that the Armenians wish to be absorbed by Russia. What they want is to have an autonomous existence side by side with Turkey, but not to be separated from Turkey.
    MR. S. SMITH:I should like to know whether, on the Amendment before the Committee, I can call attention to the case of Madagascar?
    THE CHAIRMAN:The specific Amendment under discussion must be disposed of first.
    DR. CLARK:The Government might tell us what they propose to do. There are two important subjects to be discussed to-night, and it must be borne in mind that we have done considerable business to-day. I think it would be well to report Progress now.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH, Strand, Westminster):It would be well to dispose of the Amendment before reporting Progress.
    MR. SCHWANN:I am ready to withdraw my Amendment, but I really do not know that I ought to do so. The right hon. Gentleman made a severe attack upon me and threw doubt upon the motives by which I am actuated.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON:I will make inquiries into the question raised by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire with regard to the historical books of the Armenians. I have never before heard that the Armenians have reason to complain that they are interfered with in the exercise of their religion.
    MR. BRYCE:The American missionaries complain that their devotional books are sometimes confiscated by the Turkish censors.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON:That is a matter affecting the Americans rather than ourselves. Our Ambassador will, of course, be ready to give any assistance he can in the matter.
    MR. CHANNING:I am surprised the right hon. Gentleman is not personally acquainted with the facts relating to the

    205
    Memorial to which I called attention. I really cannot pass from the question without some assurance that instructions will be given to Sir W. White to take action in regard to the subject.
    DR. TANNER:I must confess I have never listened to anything more absurd than the humiliating apology of the right hon. Gentleman for the outrages and crimes perpetrated by Moussa Bey. The Ministry is a Ministry of bravado and bunkum. The right hon. Gentleman has shown up the value of the "Peace with Honour Treaty," a Treaty which shows that Conservativism really is bunkum and nothing else.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. S. Smith.)
    MR. W. H. SMITH:I am under an engagement not to go beyond 1 o'clock with this Vote if there is any objection to doing so, and I am, therefore, prepared to withdraw this Vote. I hope, however, that the House will make progress with other Votes which are not of the same contentious character. My only desire is to consult the convenience of the House, and I have no intention of pressing the matter if hon. Members object.
    MR. LABOUCHERE:I understand that when the 12 o'clock Rule was suspended, the idea was that the Vote under discussion should not be interrupted at that hour. But now we are at 1 o'clock, and the right hon. Gentleman proposes to withdraw this Vote and bring forward others.
    MR. W. H. SMITH:If the House desires it.
    MR. LABOUCHERE:Well, I do not know in what sense that is meant. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that if he thinks he is going to get Votes through by this means he is mistaken.
    206
    Unquestionably, we have a right to discuss any Votes, though for convenience of the Government and yielding to their desire for a holiday, we do not insist on that right upon all the Votes. I can assure the First Lord of the Treasury there is not the slightest desire on the Opposition side, as far as I know, to prolong the Session unduly; but I would urge him not to push these Votes at this unearthly hour of night, 1 o'clock a.m., and not to hop from one Vote to another. Before we agree to the Motion to report Progress, I should like to gather what is the intention as to Votes to-morrow. I understood that Friday was to be given up to the Foreign Office Vote, and then it was suggested that it should be taken to-night, and we are anxious to meet the right hon. Gentleman in every sort of way. But it was understood, I think, that this discussion commenced to-night should go on tomorrow. But I do not quite understand now what the intention is. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to go on with the Vote on Saturday? I understand the right hon. Gentleman has intimated an intention to move the suspension of Rules. Does he mean to ask us to suspend the Rule that prevents our taking Report on the same day as the Vote is taken in Committee?
    MR. W. H. SMITH:There is no intention to ask the House to suspend that Rule.
    MR. LABOUCHERE:I am glad to hear that; and that, of course, makes a difference. But I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not desirable to take this Vote to-morrow and finish it, as probably we should, about 8 or 9 o'clock? Then the right hon. Gentleman is under an engagement, I think, to bring on the Navy Votes to-morrow. As far as I can gather, the only gentleman who is anxious to have these Votes thoroughly discussed is my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), and I should presume that three hours might exhaust the interest of my right hon. Friend.

    207
    The right hon. Gentleman will be making a mistake if he tries to take 50 or 60 Votes on Saturday.
    MR. W. H. SMITH:The endeavour to meet the wishes of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen makes my position somewhat difficult. I had fixed Friday for this Vote, and then I was applied to by an hon. Gentleman opposite not to take from him the opportunity of making a speech he desired to make, and so I gave way in the hope that we might finish the Vote to day. In that hope I fixed the Navy Votes for Friday. Now, I desire to meet the convenience of Members. If it is desirable I will give an assurance that the Report of the Foreign Office Vote shall be taken on the day following the Vote itself, when hon. Members may make any further observations which they may desire to make. In that case I will consent to report Progress now, and this Vote will be taken at a reasonable hour to-morrow, and further discussion may take place on the Report. ["No!"] Then the Vote must stand behind the others.
    MR. BRYCE:I do not think the right hon. Gentleman made any engagement that the Navy Votes should be first Order to-morrow. It is undesirable, I think, to break up the discussion on this Vote. We have had a useful discussion to-night, but there are one or two other points to be raised, and I think the discussion of the Vote might be concluded in good time to-morrow—say 7 or 8 o'clock—when the Navy Votes might be proceeded with.
    MR. ASHER:I have given notice of a Motion for tonight, and; as the House is aware, the time within which I can do so is limited by Statute. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not carry on Committee and postpone my Motion to a still more unreasonable hour.
    MR. S. SMITH:May I throw out the suggestion that we might dispose of the Madagascar question to-night? ["No, no!"]
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee sit again tomorrow."
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSON:On this question may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take the Vote first to-morrow, in order to dispose of points in relation to policy in Africa and matters which may not occupy more than a couple of hours or so?
    MR. W. H. SMITH:There is an understanding that the Navy Votes shall come first, and I do not feel at liberty to alter the arrangement.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Committee to sit again this day.

    SAVINGS BANKS (RE-COMMITTED) BILL. (No. 396.)

      COMMITTEE.
      Order for Committee read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order be discharged, and Bill withdrawn."—(Mr. Jackson.)
      MR. BARTLEY:This Bill was brought in in consequence of some very serious disasters in which poor people suffered considerable loss in being deprived of their savings in banks. The Bill is based on the recommendations of a Select Committee which carried on an inquiry over two years, and it was hoped that this Bill would afford protection to the savings of the thrifty among the poorer classes. It is not creditable to the House that this Bill should have been obstructed and talked out, seeing it is urgently required by 1,500,000 of the inhabitants of this country. We find time for Irish Debates over and over again, but apparantly no time to put the savings of the working classes on a safe and permanent basis.
      COLONEL NOLAN:I do not think the responsibility rests with the House; the fate of the Bill for this Session is due to the unfortunate arrangement of business by the Government.
      MR. BUCHANAN:The Bill is sacrificed now in order to add a single day to the holidays.
      MR. W. H. SMITH:That is scarcely a proper observation to make; but, however, it is not worth while to take notice of it.
      DR. CLARK:It is fair to remark that the Bill has been completely changed since its introduction, although it was drafted on the Report of the Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has endeavoured to please both Parties. The Bill must needs provoke very considerable discussion, and I do not see that the Government have any other course now.
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,:No one regrets more than I do the necessity for withdrawing the Bill. It has not been dropped owing to any controversy as to the clause involving the banks, but through the fact that the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) determined that the Government should not pass it unless they made the concession of dropping the Police Bill. I have seen a letter from the Savings Banks representatives themselves, saying that they had endeavoured to put pressure on the hon. Member for Sunderland; but that the hon. Member stated that he was a Parliamentarian, and if the Government withdrew the Police Bill he would consent to the Bill. These representations have been made by the Savings Banks, who have been most anxious that the Bill should pass.
      MR. SINCLAIR:I presume the Bill will be re-introduced next Session?
      MR. GOSCHEN:Yes. I have so informed the Savings Banks Representatives.
      MR. SEXTON:On behalf of my colleagues, I have to say that those of us who displayed an interest in the Bill withdrew our notices of Amendment as soon as we learned that they would endanger the principle of the Bill.
      210
      Further, I may say the Government might easily have passed this and other useful measures if they had not thrown away a fortnight on a foolish and vindictive attack upon Irish Members of this House.
      MR. CONYBEARE:As one of those who put down notices of Amendments, I may be permitted to say that I should in all probability have withdrawn them, but I happened to have been absent for a day or two. As to the reference to the hon. Member for Sunderland and the contents of a letter not produced, I happen to know it was because my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland considered the policy of the Bill in some respects objectionable, and not because of his opposition to the Police Bill, that he took up the position he did. The hon. Member for Sunderland is not here, and I do not know if it is his intention to return, but I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman in a friendly way that he should leave the Bill on the Paper for a day or two in order that the hon. Member may make a reply to the right hon. Gentleman should he think proper to do so.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Bill withdrawn.

      SUPPLY—REPORT.
      Resolutions [6th August] reported.
    CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1890–91.

      CLASS II.
      1. "That a sum not exceeding £7,533 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 Her Majesty's Secretary for Scotland and Subordinate Offices."
      2. "That a sum not exceeding £3,795 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 Board of Lunacy in Scotland."
      3. "That a sum not exceeding £4,025 be granted to Her Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year

      211
      ending on the 31st day of March 1891, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Registrar General of Births, &C, in Scotland."
      Resolutions agreed to.

    EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENT (SCOTLAND) (ANDERSON'S INSTITUTION,ELGIN).
    MR. ASHER:I have to apologise to the House for intruding upon it at this very inconvenient hour with regard to a matter which, however important to my own constituency, is, I must admit, of purely local interest. The Motion which I ask the House to adopt has for its object the effecting of a very slight alteration in a scheme prepared by the Educational Commissioners for Scotland with reference to an institution known as the Elgin Institution for the support of old age and the education of youth. I desire at the outset to say that my Motion is not framed in a spirit of hostility to the scheme as a whole, or towards the Educational Endowments Commissioners, whose valuable services I cordially recognise as well as the fair and courteous manner in which they endeavoured to hold the balance between the founder's intentions, on the one hand, and those changes on the other which were necessary for adapting endowments to the altered circumstances of the time. The endowment in question was founded in 1833, and it had three objects in view; in the first place, the maintenance of a hospital for the support of indigent men and women upwards of 55 years of age; in the second place, a school of industry for children of members of the labouring class who were unable to educate and maintain their children; and, in the third place, the establishment of a free school for the education of children of the same class, bat whose parents were able to maintain and clothe them. Now, Sir, the Commissioners have dealt with the endowment in this way. As regards that portion which refers to the support of old and indigent persons, they
    212
    have not interfered with the endowment at all. It was, indeed, almost entirely beyond the scope of their Commission. With regard to the free school, that, under the scheme, is handed over to the School Board at Elgin on the condition that it is to be maintained in the future as a school. The school of industry is a somewhat misleading term, because it merely consisted of an institution into which children were received, and there maintained, educated, and clothed. With regard to that school, it has been substantially abolished, and there has been substituted for it a number of foundations for both male and female children at tenable public schools throughout the county to be approved of by the Commissioners. An endowment of £250 is set apart for the purpose of school fees, books, and stationery, and also food and clothing for certain children whose parents are unable to provide these for them. With the scheme, as a whole, I am not finding fault. Power is given by the scheme to the Governors, under certain circumstances, to bring female foundationers to the institution for residence and for the purpose of being educated there. The circumstances under which the Governors have that power is where female children have lost one or both parents and the domestic circumstances of their homes are such as to make it inexpedient that they should be left there. Now, the only alteration which by my Motion I propose to make in the scheme is that the Governors should have the same power with reference to male children. It seems to my constituents desirable that the Governors should have that power in the case of boys who are foundationers, but who are in the same unfortunate circumstances as the girls may be in having a home in which it is inexpedient they should remain. I do not propose to make it obligatory on the Governors, but merely that they should have the same powers with reference to the boys as to the girls. This matter excites a good deal of interest in the locality from circumstances connected with the life of the founder, General Anderson, who was an officer in the East Indian Army, and who left to his native town a fortune sufficient for the erection

    213
    of a large handsome institution, with a revenue attached to it of nearly £2,000. The circumstances of his (General Anderson's) infancy and boyhood were by contrast of a very striking character. His mother had neither house nor home, and his early days were spent within the precincts of the ruins of Elgin Cathedral amidst circumstances of destitution and poverty of an extreme character; and there is a widespread feeling throughout the community that this munificent gift took the form which it did largely from the desire that poor boys similarly situated should find in the institution a home where they could be nurtured and educated in the way he wished. That circumstance largely accounts for the feeling prevalent in Elgin, that it is doing unnecessary violence to the will of the founder that boys should be excluded from this particular benefit of the foundation, and I hope the House will see its way, under these circumstances, to accept the very small alteration which I propose. It will not, I acknowledge, do all that many who live in the locality would wish to see effected, but, at any rate, it will be a step in the direction desired, I think, by the whole community of that neighbourhood. I should not be justified at this hour in detaining the House longer. I hope the Government will assent to this proposal, which will undoubtedly be in the line of the founder's intentions.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to withhold Her consent from that part of the scheme of the Educational Endowment (Scotland) Commissioners for the administration of the Endowment in the burgh and county of Elgin, known as the Elgin Institution for the Support of Old Age and the Education of Youth, which consists of the following words, viz., 'for girls' and 'female,' in the third line of section 29; the word 'girl' in the second and fifth lines of section 32; and the words 'girl,' in the first line, and 'female,' in the third line, of section 33 of the said scheme.—(Mr. Asher.)
    MR. SEYMOUR KEAY:As I represent the County of Elgin, I hold that I have a mandate from my constituents in this
    214
    matter, and I only wish to say that I most cordially concur in what has fallen from my hon. and learned Friend. I am prepared to add my personal testimony to the statement which he has made. I think there is no doubt that the scheme put forward by the Commissioners has, whether rightly or wrongly, raised a certain amount of suspicion in the mind of a considerable class of the population, and I believe that the Amendment which has been proposed will certainly tend in the direction of allaying any fears which have been raised. Consequently, without entering into details further, I beg cordially to second the Motion.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. M. T. STORMONTH DARLING,:After the admonitions addressed to the Government last night not to depart from any scheme for the administration of an educational endowment which has received the sanction of the Education Department, I think the House will not be surprised to hear that we have considered anxiously whether we ought to assent to the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend. Undoubtedly he is quite right in saying that the proposal which he makes involves no invasion of principle. I believe that the Commissioners, whose work in all these matters has been so valuable, were actuated in the decision to which they came by considerations which were very prevalent in Scotland at the time the scheme was framed against what was termed the Hospital system, and apparently they thought it better to reduce that system within limits by confining the benefits of the Institution, so far as the Hospital is concerned, to girls. There is, however, a great deal in what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend, both as to the antecedents of the founder, and also as to the moderate and permissive character of a proposal which does no more than confer the power on the Governors of the Institution to admit boys to its benefits as well as girls. These considerations, coupled with the fact that there seems to b a general consensus of local opinion in favour of the Motion, have induced the

    215
    Government to assent to it and to invite the House to accept it.
    (1.45.) Question put, and agreed to.
    Address to be presented by Privy Councillors.

    FINANCIAL RELATIONS (ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND).
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the present financial relations between England, Scotland, and Ireland, and to report—

    (1.) The amount and proportion of revenue contributed to the Exchequer by the people of England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively;

    (2.) The amount and proportion of revenue which under recent legislation is paid to Local Authorities in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively;

    (3.) The amount and proportion of moneys expended out of the Exchequer; (a) upon Civil and Local Government services for the special use of; and (b) upon collection of revenue in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively;

    (4.) The amount and proportion of State Loans outstanding, and of State Liabilities incurred for local purposes in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively;

    (5.) How far the financial relations established by the sums so contributed, paid, advanced, or promised, or by any other existing conditions, are equitable, having regard to the resources and population of England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively;

    That the Select Committee do consist of Twenty-one Members;
    That Mr. John Morley, Mr. Arthur Balfour, Mr. Childers, Lord Randolph Churchill, Mr. Henry H. Fowler, Mr. Baring, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland, Mr. Sexton, Sir Richard Temple, Mr. Sinclair, Dr. Cameron, Sir Matthew Ridley, Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Bristowe, Mr. James William Lowther, Mr. Stuart Rendel, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. Jackson, and Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer be Members of the Committee;
    That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records;
    That Five be the quorum."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    MR. GOSCHEN:I do not know whether hon. Members who have on the Paper Amendments to this Motion will withdraw them, looking at the fact that next year the re-appointment of the
    216
    Committee will have to be moved, and they will have precisely the same opportunity of raising the questions as they now possess. It is desirable that the Committee should be at once appointed in order that it may hold one meeting, and make arrangements for securing Reports and Returns during the Recess, in order to facilitate the inquiry which they will have to conduct.
    DR. CLARK:I trust the right hon. Gentleman will force this matter on. The Orders of the Day are suspended; Government business can be taken up to any hour. It is important that the Committee should be appointed, and I hope the Government will persevere with it. I do not think the discussion need take very long.
    Several MEMBERS objected.
    MR. GOSCHEN:After the pledge of the First Lord of the Treasury that no really contentious business should be taken after 1 o'clock, I do not think it advisable to press the Motion in the face of the opposition which is threatened, and the matter, therefore, must go over until Monday.
    Order deferred until Monday next.

    ASSAULTS ON FEMALES.
    Address. for—
    "Return showing for the following places:— England and Wales—towns of over 150,000 inhabitants by the Census of 1881; Scotland—Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Dundee; Ireland—Dublin, Belfast, and Cork; the number of males convicted in 1889 for murder and manslaughter of, and for all assaults upon, females; the cases being classified in tabular form according to the nature of the assaults; and showing the sentences passed for such assaults; classified in the case of sentences of imprisonment or penal servitude according to their duration, and specifying cases where corporal punishment was inflicted." — (Mr. Walter M'Laren.)
    It being after One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
    House adjourned at ten minutes before Two o'clock.

EDUCATION OF BLIND AND DEAF MUTE CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 123.)
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with amendments: The said amendments to be considered on Monday next.
PARTNERSHIP BILL.—(No. 153.)
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with amendments: The said amendments to be considered To-morrow.
LOCAL TAXATION (CUSTOM AND EXCISE) DUTIES BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read 1a (The Earl of Jersey); to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next. (No. 261.)
POLICE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read 1a (The Lord De Ramsey); to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next. (No. 262.)
POLICE SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read 1 (The Lord Ker, M. Lothian); to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next. (No. 263.)
ALDERSHOT ROADS BILL.—(No. 219.)
Read 3a (according to order) with the amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BANKRUPTCY BILL.—(No. 237.)
Read 3a (according to order), with the amendments; further amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES BILL.—(No. 253.)
House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order); Bill reported without further amendment; and to be read 3a to-morrow.
TENANTS COMPENSATION BILL. (No. 254.)
House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order); Bill reported without further amendment; and to be read 3a on Tuesday next.
METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT ACT (1862) AMENDMENT BILL. —(No. 213.)
House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order); Bill reported without further amendment; and to be read 3a on Tuesday next.

METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 252.)
House in Committee (according to order.)
Clause 3.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY:My Lords, there are two Bills before the House in relation to Metropolitan buildings. It is rather singular that this, which is a public Bill contains no provision to prevent such monstrosities as the Hankey Buildings and Queen Ann's Mansions. The County Council Bill has a clause to prevent houses being erected above 70 feet in height, but the noble Lord the Chairman of the Select Committee has struck out that limit and has altered it to 90 feet, and two storeys in the roof, so that the height of the building altogether may be raised to 105 feet, as it is impossible to make a story less than 7 feet, and allowing a foot for a floor it gives 15 feet. The County Council Bill is a private Bill, and up to the present time it has not been communicated to the Metropolitan Members, and very few of your Lordships, I imagine, have seen that Bill. The Board of Works do not appear to have taken any part in it. The answer given to Lord Hardinge was that they would be glad to see any efforts which he might make successful, and that anything he attempted to carry out would receive the warm support of the Office of Works. Nothing further has been done in that sense. My Lords, these enormous buildings are not only very unsightly, but entail very great danger, especially danger

71
from fire. I think the noble Lord the Chairman of the Committee took no evidence upon the subject of danger from fire, but if he had it would not, I think, have been of much value, because the precautions against fire in these very high buildings only consist of cisterns in the roof with hydrants to be applied when occasion requires. But it is quite certain that many people would be lost in case of fire in these high buildings, because it would be trusting to a broken reed to expect that suddenly roused people in the middle of the night, perhaps frightened women, would be able to set those hydrants to work. Any of your Lordships who have seen the large hotels in Paris must know how very dangerous they are. Besides, the rooms in the roof would not always be healthy in summer, they would be most unwholesome, and they cannot be properly provided with fires in the winter. The Amendments which I have placed on the Paper I will not press now, as they might come more appropriately upon the County Council Bill, but I think it is for the convenience of the House that this discussion should take place at the present time, for every day the attendance in the House gets smaller. I propose to point out what is regarded as the sanitary scale, that is the height of buildings shall not exceed the width of the street. That is already the Statutory provision with regard to new streets, and in old streets, it should be taken into consideration in any Amendment that might be made as to the height of the houses. If the question of the manner in which old streets have been built is to be gone into, I think Her Majesty's Government will meet the desires of everybody if they will appoint a Select Committee next Session to go into this question of the erection of these very high buildings in the Metropolis. I understand that Baron Hausmann in Paris endeavoured to follow the same sanitary scale, that is to say, the height of the houses not exceeding the width of the street; but in London it is not always possible to follow that out. Here there are some streets fully as narrow as those in Paris, such as Jermyn Street, for instance. That may be done in Paris which cannot be done here in consequence of the dampness of the climate and the narrowness and darkness of
72
the streets. There is one thing upon which I must compliment the Chairman of the Select Committee, and that is the clause which he has permitted to be added in page 36, providing that where, as in some streets already, such as Victoria Street, there are at present gaps, the new houses shall be of the same height as the existing buildings. That is a very good provision, and gets rid of some of the difficulties which many persons have urged against any alteration in height as the provision now stands in the Bill, that is the height of 90 feet. I should like to add, with regard to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who have a large amount of property in the Metropolis, that the Secretary told me the Commissioners would not raise a finger to increase the limit, which had originally been fixed of 70 feet. They are very good judges on the subject. I heard one person say that those who had proposed this knew nothing about their business and were sacrificing property, but I do not think that is the case; on the contrary, by showing themselves moderate they would be more likely to obtain sanction to their proposals without opposition, the same would be the case with Government Offices. I hope some of your Lordships will enter into the discussion, which up to the present has been carried on almost entirely with closed doors. There have been so many other subjects before the public that it has not been discussed in the Press, as so important a matter, I think, should have been, because there can be no doubt that buildings 105 feet in height in the Metropolis will be very dangerous and unhealthy, and especially dangerous from fire. I move the Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved, after Clause 3, insert as a new clause—
"After the passing of this Act, it shall not be lawful to erect a building higher than what is allowed by the sanitary scale sanctioned by the late Metropolitan Board of Works, namely, the height not to exceed the width of the street, nor to exceed seventy feet where there is an open space in front of the building, without the sanction of the county council, after the application to the county council shall have been duly advertised."—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
LORD HERSCHELL:No doubt it is a very interesting subject which the noble Lord has raised for discussion, but it has

73
not really reference to the Bill which is now in Committee, which does not deal with buildings, or the height of buildings. It has great relevance, no doubt, to another Bill which is now before your Lordships' House, which has passed from a Select Committee and come back to your Lordships, and which will have to be considered either to-morrow or on some future occasion. That Bill deals with this specific question of the height of houses. My noble Friend is afraid that when that Bill comes on the number of your Lordships present will be even more limited than to-day, but I am afraid that is hardly a reason for discussing upon this Bill a proposition which really arises on another Bill. We can hardly insert such a clause as he suggests in this Bill when there is another analogous Bill which is coming before your Lordships after it has been dealt with by the Select Committee. I am not without some sympathy with the noble Lord in his desire to prevent these very high buildings being erected in London, but, after all, that seems to me to be a question which cannot properly be discussed on the present occasion.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY:I withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 205.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Bill read 3a (according to order).
  LORD THRING:The Amendment which has been proposed in this Bill will, I am sure, commend itself to your Lordships' House. It is merely to provide that where land in the Metropolis or in large towns is devoted expressly by the Trust upon which it is held for an open space, it shall not be built upon by virtue of the provisions of this Act.
  Amendment moved, in Clause 8, page 3, line 21, insert—
  ("Provided that land situated in the metropolis or in any town of over twenty thousand inhabitants which is held on trusts to be pre-
  74
  served as an open space, or on trusts which prohibit building thereon, shall not be granted or conveyed for the purposes of this Act.")—(The Lord Thring.)
  Agreed to.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

  DIRECTORS LIABILITY BILL.—(No. 242.)
  Amendment reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
  CENSUS (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL. (No. 226.)
  Read 3a (according to order), with the amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  MARRIAGES IN BRITISH EMBASSIES, &c. BILL.—(No. 167.)
  Read 3a (according to order), with the amendments; further amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

  ROYAL UNITED SERVICE INSTITUTION.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH, in rising to inquire the intentions of Her Majesty's Government respecting the future accommodation of the Royal United Service Institution's Museum and Library; and to move for Correspondence between the Council of the Institution and Her Majesty's Government, said: My Lords, the Institution referred to in the Question which I rise to ask, has been, as your Lordships are aware, established for a great number of years, and has received a certain amount of support from the Government. The value of the Institution as regards its monetary position has very greatly increased during the last 50 years. I think they began with stock of the value of £40 or £50; that stock has now increased, and the value of the models, engravings, and many other articles, which are of the utmost value to both the Naval and Military Services, is about £20,000. The books, which, when they first commenced, were very small in number, have now increased to a very large library, which is most valuable for Military and Naval purposes, and that library is valued at £23,000. The subscriptions have doubled. Such of your Lordships as have attended the

  75
  various lectures, which are given during the season about once a week, must be perfectly aware of what immense value those lectures are to both Services. I may say they are attended not only by the most prominent members of both the Military and Naval Services, but that officers from the private fleets as well as engineers of great eminence attend those discussions and render the proceedings of the utmost possible value. If your Lordships have attended, as I have no doubt many have, you must be perfectly aware that some of the most distinguished officers in the Army and Navy take a lively interest and a very prominent part in those discussions; and whilst the scientific character of the Navy, as well as of the Army, is gradually increasing, the discussions of the newest subjects in science which take place there are of the utmost value to both Services. We have had meetings there presided over by the illustrious Duke the Commander-in-Chief, by His Royal Highness the Duke of-Edinburgh, and by the different First Lords of the Admiralty. Last year a deputation waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I should mention, as showing what a precarious position the Institution now stands in, that this most valuable Museum is now crowded into a dark building where there is not room for anybody to examine its contents, or even a small portion of them; and the building itself is so dilapidated that it probably will not last many years longer. Moreover, they are in this precarious position: that the building is Government property; they are under notice to quit; and may be turned out at any moment. Her Majesty's Government have from time to time made, not exactly promises, but have held out very great hopes of assistance, and I was myself present about two years ago when the First Lord of the Admiralty used language which led us to hope that the Government certainly intended to give a new building or to provide facilities for procuring a new one. Since then an address has been presented to His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief on the subject, and a deputation has waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At first the answers given on behalf of the Government were tolerably encouraging, but I am sorry to
  76
  say on the last occasion (I think it was last month) the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the First Lord of the Admiralty, after communication with the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the matter was hung up and that he could afford no hope to the Institution of any immediate assistance being given. Your Lordships are perfectly aware that the Institution and its valuable museum stand upon threatened ground. There are alterations going on in every direction round it, and the building itself is a perfect disgrace to the locality. I do venture to ask that Her Majesty's Government will give their attention to this matter, which is one of the utmost importance to the Military and Naval Services; both Services are interested in it, and the benefit which has been conferred by it I am sure no one who is connected with either of those Services will venture for a moment to deny.
  Moved,
  "That there be laid before this House, Correspondence between the Council of the Royal United Service Institution and Her Majesty's Government respecting the future accommodation of the museum and library of the Institution."—(The Viscount Sidmouth.)
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Earl BROWNLOW):In the absence of the Prime Minister I have to state that this question has not been at all lost sight of; on the contrary, it is still under consideration, but it is considered that, pending a decision, it would be undesirable to produce the correspondence which has passed on the subject.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH:I withdraw the Motion after what the noble Earl has stated, but I am really rather surprised that the Government should object to produce the correspondence.
  A noble LORD: I believe the correspondence is not yet completed.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

PROPOSED DOCK AT GIBRALTAR.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH, in rising to ask for information as to the proposed dock at Gibraltar, said: My Lords, before the close of the Session, I wish to ask Her Majesty's Government the question which stands in my name with reference

  77
  to the proposed dock at Gibraltar. In April last Lord Elphinstone informed the House that the Admiralty were taking the matter in hand, and that they were extremely anxious that the dock should be commenced as soon as possible. As, however, I have been informed that nothing has been done, and seeing that the Session is nearly at an end, I should like to hear definitely from a Member of the Government whether anything has been done in the matter or not.
  EARL BROWNLOW:In answer to the question of the noble Viscount, I have to state that up to the present time no final decision has been arrived at as to the manner in which the construction of the proposed dock at Gibraltar will be carried out. I believe it was stated by Lord Elphinstone on the 24th April, in reply to the noble Viscount, that difficulties had arisen in carrying out the original proposals, and I am informed that since that time the whole matter has been under the consideration of a Departmental Committee. I am further informed that the Committee have now completed their work; but though the inquiry has been concluded, up to the present they have not reported to the Admiralty.

THE ATLANTIC CATTLE TRAFFIC.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL DE LA WARR, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose to take any steps to regulate the Atlantic cattle traffic; and whether the Act of 1878 gives sufficient power to the Privy Council to provide proper accommodation for the transit of cattle; also, to move for a Return of Transatlantic ships which arrived in British ports with live cattle in the years 1888 and 1889, showing the losses sustained by each ship during the voyage, said: I wish to ask your Lordships' attention for a few moments to the condition in which cattle are found to arrive in this country which are brought over from the other side of the Atlantic. I believe a Bill was introduced into the other House of Parliament this Session bearing upon the subject; but it appears that that Bill, like, I am afraid, several other Bills, is about to be dropped for the present. I therefore venture to
  78
  ask for some little information from Her Majesty's Government as to whether any steps have been taken to impose more stringent regulations than now exist with regard to the accommodation for cattle on board these transatlantic ships. I know it has been sometimes mentioned that it would be very desirable that no live cattle should be transported from the other side of the Atlantic owing to the great difficulties attendant upon the traffic; but I do not wish now to enter upon that question. I think, however, it is a matter of the greatest importance to prevent the large amount of suffering and cruelty, besides loss of animals, which now exist, and that some very stringent regulations should be imposed by Her Majesty's Government to prevent these very serious cases of cruelty and loss of cattle. Now, to give your Lordships very shortly an idea of what has been going on, it has been reported that a deputation has waited upon Sir Michael Hicks Beach, consisting of Members of Parliament, on the subject of Mr. Plimsoll's Bill bearing upon this question, and Sir Michael Hicks Beach said, "The loss of animals shipped on some of these transatlantic vessels is horrible." I have a list of ships which arrived in British ports during 1888 and 1889, and I will read to your Lordships the names of some of the ships giving the numbers of animals which were lost:—The Palestine lost 168 out of 344 cattle; the Blenheim lost 128 out of 204; the Rialto lost 314 out of 328; the North Durham lost 281 out of 380. That was in 1888; and in 1889 the Oxford lost 151 out of 187; the Iowa lost 519 out 625; the Lake Superior lost 313 out of 470; and the Manitoba 204 out of 246. By this it appears that the loss of cattle was over two-thirds of the animals shipped. Now, assuming this to be correct as reported, what I would ask your Lordships to do is to authorise the verification by a Parliamentary Return of the particulars here given, which, I conclude, only forms a part of the subject. At the same time I wish to ask Her Majesty's Government whether any steps are proposed to be taken to regulate this traffic for the future, and whether there is not already sufficient power in the Act of 1878, as I believe there is, given to the Privy Council to ensure proper accommodation

  79
  in the transit of cattle. I beg to move for the Return mentioned in my Notice of Motion.
  Moved—
  "That there be laid before this House, Return of Transatlantic ships which arrived in British ports with live cattle in the years 1888 and 1889, showing the losses sustained by each ship during the voyage."—(The Earl De La Warr.)
  THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (The Earl of JERSEY):There is no doubt whatever that the subject to which the noble Earl has drawn attention is one which must excite our compassion, and I am glad to think that the answer I have to give him will prove satisfactory, at least, I hope so. A Departmental Committee of the Board of Trade and Board of Agriculture has been appointed to consider what further regulations may be necessary for protecting animals from unnecessary suffering during their transit by sea, and I believe it held its first meeting to-day. There is ample power given by the Act of 1878 for, making regulations in regard to the transit of cattle by sea. As regards the Return which is asked for, a similar Motion has been made in the other House of Parliament. The Return has been granted, and has been ordered to be printed, but it has not yet been circulated. It will be issued shortly, and, therefore, I presume the noble Earl will not require to have a duplicate Return made for this House.
  EARL DE LA WARR:Then I withdraw the Motion for the Return.
  Motion (by leave of the House), withdrawn.

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT.

  QUESTIONS—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS, in rising to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether County Councils, having in view the economical administration of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, may, under Sub-section 2, of Section 52, consistently with the spirit and intention of the said Act, appoint, by arrangement with the District Committees, medical officers and sanitary inspectors, who shall act as the officers and Inspectors alike of the Council and of the districts, said: I have a question on the Paper which I wish to
  80
  put to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is a question which affects Scotland in particular; but it is a question which affects all your Lordships more or less, as it refers to the administration by County Councils of Local Government as between the County Councils and the District Committees. There are not yet, I believe, District Committees in England, but there is a prospect of there being a District Local Government in the form of District Committees in England at no distant period. Now, my object is, if possible, to ascertain whether the course which I think might be pursued under the Act, is one which is in accordance with the spirit and intention of that Act, and with a view to economy. There is no doubt that popular feeling as to rates is becoming very strong, both as regards rates in the country and rates in towns. This morning I was for a considerable time attending my duties as a Vestryman in St. James', and the question which came up there was the question of rates and their rapid and very great increase. In the parish of St. James's rates have risen to 4s. in £1—that is, a fifth of a man's income. So strong is the feeling that some limit ought to be put to rating, that I have given notice of a question which I shall not put until Parliament meets again. I have merely put it down in order that Her Majesty's Government may take it into consideration. It is to this effect: To ask Her Majesty's Government if they will bring in a Bill for the purpose of fixing the amount of rating by the London County Council, the London School Board, and other Metropolitan Municipal Authorities. So much for the feeling in London. In my own county this is the sort of thing with regard to rates that we have to deal with, and I think nothing gives a worse picture of the position of affairs throughout the agricultural districts than the figures which I have to submit to your Lordships. County Councils may not give us better government, or less expensive government; but I think they have done this, they have forced the members of those Councils to go more narrowly into this question of expenditure and rates than they would have done had not this system of Local Government been established. We have had to do that in my

  81
  county, and I find that this is the state of affairs there. As regards the county in general the valuation, in 1845, was £246,000; in 1880, it was £354,000; and in 1889, it had fallen to £244,000. That is the county valuation in what is generally supposed to be a prosperous county, the County of Haddington. That is, in 1889–90, it is £2,000 less than it was in the year 1845. But how, as to the rates and assessment? Why the assessment which was in the year 1845 £8,000 is £17,000 on the reduced valuation of 1889. Let me take the case of an estate in that county; the rents of that estate are down 25 per cent., while the taxation or rates are up 50 per cent. Now, I think, under those circumstances, it is desirable that this new Local Government Act in Scotland, and everywhere else, should be administered with due regard, of course, to efficiency, but also with the utmost regard to all possible economy. As regards the sanitary provisions under that Act, there is a provision by Sub-section 2 of Section 52 by which, by an arrangement between the District Committees and the County Council, the medical officers of the districts or of the County Councils may be made to do double duty—that the officers of the district shall be officers of the Council. On the other hand, it is possible to appoint a head officer, who may or may not be resident, as a sort of hierarch, with sanitary officers under him. That means the displacement of existing medical officers and Sanitary Inspectors; it means a great deal of heart-burning and a great deal of friction; and I cannot but think that this provision was introduced by the noble Lord into his Bill with a view to the more full, and, at the same time, more economical, administration of the Public Health Acts, without raising questions which are invidious as regards the merits of the different local Medical and Sanitary Authorities, and creating, as I have said, much friction, heart-burning, and jealousy. On the other hand, I have heard it said that such a provision would not be in accordance with the intention of the Act. I ask, why, then, is there such a provision in it? My firm belief is that it is in accordance alike with the spirit and the intention of the Act, and that it will tend, as I
  82
  believe, to the good working of the Act in the different counties of Scotland. There is, moreover, in case of any difficulty arising, an appeal to the Board of Supervision, and, besides that, it would be competent for the County Council to take the opinion of some medical authority upon sanitary matters, if any special occasion arises, as they can now take a legal opinion upon ordinary law and other matters. I think, then, it was intended under this Act that County Councils should, if they think fit, act in the way I have ventured to suggest, and it is with a view of getting this matter cleared up that I now put the question which stands in my name.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY:Before the noble Marquess replies to my noble Friend's question, which I have no doubt in my own mind will be in the affirmative, I should like to allude to the subject under discussion, as it is one of great importance in Scotland, and I do so also as Chairman of the Public Health Committee in my own county. I do not apprehend the very great difficulties which the noble Earl does. I think the matter will depend entirely upon the management of the County Council as between it and the District Committee. In our own case what we have done is this: we have resolved at once, in accordance with the Act, to appoint a head Sanitary Inspector; we have proceeded to appoint a Sanitary Inspector for the County of Aberdeen; we have then suggested to the District Committees that his services should be at their disposal, and that he should have the supervision of the local Sanitary Inspectors. We were, of course, alarmed at the extraordinary volume of expenditure we might have had to rush into if we appointed Sanitary Inspectors all over the districts, and we have approached this question prudently. Hitherto the Public Health Acts in Scotland have been administered at a very low cost indeed. I can tell your Lordships that the Public Health Acts for the whole county of Aberdeen, comprising 87 parishes, have been administered by medical officers and inspectors, at yearly salaries of £267 altogether. There is a medical officer for each parish, and a Sanitary Inspector for each parish, and it is very easy to see that the salaries of those

  83
  men would be about from £3 to £4 only. It was absurd to suppose that you could carry out the provisions of this new Act at that low rate, but we believed that we ought not to rush into expenditure, and therefore we have informed the District Committees that the services of our Sanitary Inspector were at their disposal for the purpose of supervising their local men. Before the noble Marquess replies I would remind the noble Earl that there is a great difficulty in laying down hard and fast rules on the matter, because the districts vary so in size. For instance, there may be a district lying close to a town where the County Sanitary Inspector can easily supervise the District Committee's men, locally in each parish, but if you take the case of some far away district in the Highlands it would be impossible for the County Sanitary Inspector to overtake the whole of the duties over that district. So that we have suggested that the parishes should group their districts, but always bearing in mind that the County Sanitary Inspector should be their head. I do not apprehend that Scottish prudence will very readily lead these bodies into reckless expenditure in this matter. I do not think County Government has been extravagantly managed in the past, and therefore I do not believe that in the future the County Councils are going to be extravagant.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN:I do not think there is any doubt as to the answer which will be given by the noble Marquess, because there is a clause in the Act which states that such an arrangement as the noble Earl proposes may be made between the County Councils and the District Committees. It is evidently the intention of the Act that such arrangements should be made, where possible, for the purpose of economy and good management. But I do not desire to go at any length into the matter, I have only risen because this question of Medical Inspectors has now, for the first time, been mentioned to this House, which is, I think, a most important question with regard to the administration of Local Government in Scotland. At the present time, in the county which I have to deal with, the county of Forfar, it is generally felt that the good management of the County Ad-
  84
  ministration will greatly turn on the manner in which these appointments of medical officers and Sanitary Inspectors are made. We feel that there is a great risk that if we make appointments of medical officers at high salaries, and of Sanitary Inspectors also, we shall find ourselves in this position, that we shall not be able to change our arrangements, we shall not be able to get rid of these Inspectors after we have once appointed them, without the approval of the Board of Supervision, and that naturally makes us careful and cautious as to what we do. The County Council with which I am connected will meet next week to consider this matter, and I wish to say one thing to the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Scotland which I think he may, perhaps, deem worthy of attention. It is this: That many of us feel we should be in a much better position to deal with this difficult question if we had some means of consultation or conference with the Board of Supervision in Edinburgh, at which the various Councils were represented. Of course, I do not mean, for a moment, that the Board of Supervision should attempt (and I am sure they would not wish in any way to do so), to force their authority on the County Councils. On the other hand, I am convinced that the County Councils, or, at least, all the sensible County Councils, would be very much obliged to the Central Authority if they would invite a Conference at which all these questions might be considered and discussed. It is obvious, as has already been stated by the noble Marquess the Marquess of Huntley, that these matters must be thoroughly considered and discussed if we are to arrange our local business in an economical and prudent manner, and it is for that purpose that I am sure—I, at all events, as Chairman of a County Council, may say that I should be very much obliged for any suggestions or hints that I may receive as to the manner in which these appointments may best be made for such a county as that which I represent.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN):The noble Earl has asked me a question to which I have great pleasure in replying, but I should like to remind him before I proceed to give my reply

  85
  that he must understand that any opinion which I give is simply an opinion of my own, because it is impossible for me or anyone else to give a legal interpretation of an Act of Parliament. That can only be done by a Judicial Tribunal. I should like to make one more observation before I reply to the noble Earl's question. I have gathered from his speech that there is an impression in his mind that there has been some extravagance on the part of the County Councils, or some tendency on the part of the County Councils to extravagance in the management of the county business. I do not know whether I am mistaken in that or not, but as far as I am concerned, I think the County Councils have entered upon their new duties with every desire to carry them out with efficiency and economy combined. With regard to the question put by the noble Earl, I think the remarks which fell from the noble Marquess opposite have pretty nearly answered that question. Much depends upon what the object of the noble Earl is in asking the question. He refers to Section 52 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act. He states very truly that the County Councils are bound to appoint medical officers and Sanitary Inspectors for the county, but Sub-section 2 modifies that to this extent, that the County Councils, by consent, and by mutual arrangement with the District Committees, may appoint the County Sanitary Inspectors and medical officers as officials for the different districts. I think that sub-section was inserted in the Act with the obvious intention of economy, because it tends rather to discourage, as far as might be desirable, the appointment of separate medical officers, and separate Sanitary Inspectors in every district in the county. Of course, if the county officers are appointed district officers also, no doubt great economy will be effected. But, as far as I gathered from the speech of the noble Earl, his object is to get an opinion from me that it is desirable, and that it would be within the scope and intention of the Act that all the district officers, as such, should be appointed county officers. I am bound to tell him that I do not think that that is within the intention of the
  86
  Act, and I think it is pretty obvious it, cannot be so, because from the clause, if looked at, it is evident the whole object of the arrangement is that the county officials shall supervise and inspect the work of the district officials. If you appoint the latter to be county officials, they would simply be revising and inspecting their own work. Under those circumstances it would not be a very desirable arrangement, even if it were within the scope of the Act that such an arrangement should be carried into effect. I fail to see where the question of economy comes in. Take the case of the county in which the noble Earl is interested. There are 10 medical officers in that county with districts of larger or smaller size. Some of those Inspectors receive £5, and one of them receives not more than 30s. salary. If those officers, are discharged they will be entitled now to some sort of superannuation. Still the amount which would come to them under salaries of that amount would not be very rninous. On the other hand, I think a large saving would be effected to the county if such arrangements under Clause 52 could be carried into effect, and if the county officers were made, where desirable, district officials as well. I am bound to say that I think the wording of the section would give that interpretation which the noble Earl puts upon it, but that as far as the intention of it goes, in reference to the noble Earl's last question, I do not think that is within the intention of the clause. With regard to what fell from the noble Earl opposite (Lord Camperdown) there is but one point which I need refer to, and that is the question of the Conference he suggests between the Chairmen of Committees, or conveners of the different County Councils. I entirely agree with what has fallen from the noble Earl, and I think nothing could be more desirable than that there should be some general idea arrived at in regard to carrying out the work of the County Councils. I think that should be brought about by some such means as he has suggested, and I do not think any difficulty whatever would be raised by the Board of Supervision in carrying out such an idea. All I can say is, that if I can do anything in the matter I shall be most happy to do so. I think

  87
  that answers the question which has been put, and I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with any farther remarks upon this matter.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS:Then, as I gather from the noble Marquess, he admits my interpretation, and that what I have proposed is legal according to the wording of the Act, but that the Act does not really carry out the intentions of its framers.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN:No. What I say is that the language of the section might bear that interpretation, but it is not the intention of the Act that such an interpretation should be put upon it.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS:Then that is exactly what I have said.
  House adjourned at half-past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter-past Four o'clock.