Sitting of 11 August 1890

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL— (by Order.)
  Order for further Proceedings read on Question [9th August],
  472
  "That, in the case of the Dublin Corporation Bill, returned by the House of Lords with Amendments, the Standing Orders be suspended, and that the Lords Amendments be now considered."—(Mr. Arthur Balfour.)
  Question again proposed.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I wish to raise a point of order in connection with this Bill. It is a Private Bill, and it is proposed to add to it clauses which cover more than three pages of the Order Book, converting it practically into a new Bill, which unsettles the provisions of a Public Act passed in 1849. It has never been under the consideration of the ratepayers of Dublin, and I want to ask you, Sir, if it is in order to proceed with it?
  MR. SEXTON: Upon the point of order I have to say that the point was raised by the counsel for the opponents of the Bill before a Select Committee of this House, and on that occasion the Speaker's counsel and other authorities were consulted. It was unanimously decided that it was a matter entirely within the discretion of Parliament, whether the question should be dealt with by a public or a private Bill.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the suspension of the Standing Orders covers anything it will cover everything that is proposed to be taken into consideration to-day, as well as the Amendments which the Lords have made in the Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,*(3.16.) THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): Moved in page 2, after line 19, insert—
  "And whereas it is expedient that a separate department should be formed in the office of the Collector General of Rates for the supervision of the applotting and levying all municipal rates, and that the power of collecting such rates should be vested in and exercised by the Corporation."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I think it would have been more convenient if the right hon. Gentleman, in moving the Amendment, had taken the opportunity of letting the House know

  473
  what he is doing. What he is virtually proposing to do, is to unsettle the settlement of 1849. That settlement was arrived at after a great deal of difficulty had been experienced in the collection of the rates. Previous to 1849, they had been collected by various bodies at great inconvenience to the citizens, and at considerable cost. The settlement of 1849 was arrived at after public conferences had been held, and a Collector General was appointed to collect the rates. He was authorised by the Act to collect the municipal rates within the City of Dublin, the Metropolitan Police Rate, which is leviable within the city and also in the extra municipal districts, the West Quay Wharf Rates, the Poor Rates within the city, and, lastly, the Bridges Rate. The Collector General is a Government officer; his staff are Government officers; and the citizens of Dublin have had the advantage of having the rates collected by a perfectly independent and non-political authority ever since 1849. That is of great advantage in a city like Dublin, and no complaint has ever been made of the system, or of the Collector General. I have lived in Dublin for the last 25 years, I am a large ratepayer, and I never heard the Collector General charged with partisanship. Yet the Chief Secretary now proposes to unsettle the settlement of 1849, without a word of complaint from the citizens, or a word of evidence having been taken in either House in favour of the present proposal.
  MR. SEXTON: It was proposed in the Lords.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: And thrown out, no evidence being given in its favour. The Corporation of Dublin appeared before the Committee, but they were opposed by the Dock Board, the Chamber of Commerce, and various other bodies, all of whom dread the interference of the City of Dublin in this matter. It is entirely in opposition to their wishes that the present proposal is made by the Chief Secretary. Their contention is that the existing system of collecting the rates has worked well and economically, and the Corporation is the sole body opposed to it. The proposal is now made by the Government themselves, but they do not suggest that the Corporation should collect the Police Rate, because they know that at some
  474
  critical moment the Corporation might not levy it. As I have said, the proposal to allow the Corporation to collect the rates was opposed by a Committee of the citizens, by the Dock Board, by the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, by the townships of Rathmines, Pembroke, and Blackrock, and by all the townships immediately surrounding Dublin. The Select Committee came to the conclusion that the Corporation ought to be allowed to collect their own rate. I gave evidence in favour of that proposal, and after hearing the evidence the Committee cut out the clauses which sought to take over the Collector General's powers bodily. They decided that the Corporation should have power to collect their own rate, but no other, and they framed a clause which was totally unworkable, and which, when it went up to the House of Lords, was rejected on general grounds, and on the ground that it would take away two-thirds of the Collector General's duties. That clause having been struck out, the Government now propose to insert fresh clauses. In the first place, they moved the re-committal of the Bill, and it was sent back to the House of Lords; but the Lords threw out the clauses submitted to them because they held that such action on the part of the Government was totally unprecedented, and that it amounted to an unsettlement by a Private Bill of a settlement arrived at in regard to the rates of Dublin by a Public Act in 1849. You, Sir, have ruled that the Standing Orders may be suspended, and that these clauses can be proposed. I do not dispute your ruling, but if it is in order, all I have to say is that at the close of the Session, when most Members have left London, it is most unfair to adopt so singular a proceeding, having regard to the important interests involved. In the year 1870 a Parliamentary Paper was presented to this House on the Motion of the late Mr. E. D. Gray, who was then Member for the County of Tipperary, which was signed by 37 members of the Corporation of the City of Dublin, protesting against the appointment of Mr. John Bryne as Collector General, and stating that the rate collectors of Dublin had almost everything in their power as regards the franchise. They protested against the rate collectors being appointed

  475
  by the Collector General, because they thought the rate collectors might use their influence in a manner that might be hostile to the Corporation. These clauses give the Corporation power to appoint two-thirds of the rate collectors who, by leaving the rates of the Unionists uncollected, can deliberately disfranchise that Party.
  MR. SEXTON: Although two-thirds of the rate collectors may be appointed by the Corporation they may be removed by the Lord Lieutenant.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: No doubt; but experience proves that it is very difficult to remove officers after they have been once appointed. The proposal of the Chief Secretary is simply to give the Dublin Corporation the power of disfranchising every Unionist in the city. They are creating an imperium inimperio, and are setting up a dual control in the Collector General's office. They are creating an impossible and impracticable situation which they know will not work, and the end will be that the whole power of the Collector General's office will be taken over by the Corporation. The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) asked the other day what steps the Government were going to take in order to keep good faith. Who is the good faith to be kept with?
  MR. SEXTON: Good faith with the promoters of the Bill—the Dublin Corporation—to whom the Government had bound themselves to propose these clauses.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The sum and substance of all of this is that the Government, in order to bring the Session to a close, have sold the Unionist Party in Dublin, and, in my opinion, the Unionist Party deserved a better fate at the hands of the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General for Ireland.
  MR. HASTINGS: I had the honour of serving as Chairman of the Committee of this House to which the Bill was referred, and I wish to explain that the position was somewhat different from that which has been laid down by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. In the first place, the question was fully considered by us whether the promoters of a private Bill would be justified in proposing to the House, and whether the House would be
  476
  justified in passing provisions in a private Bill which would do away with the provisions of a public Bill. We came to the conclusion that it all depended upon the circumstances of the case. If the public Bill related to wide matters of public policy, no doubt the Committee would not have entertained the idea of altering them by a private Bill. But in this case that was not so. The provisions of the Act of 1849 were purely local relating to the City of Dublin, and I was supported in the view I took not only by the learned counsel who advises you, Sir, in the discharge of your duties, but also by the highest authorities upon private Bill legislation. The decision arrived at was that there is nothing to prevent a private Bill from doing away with the provisions of a public Bill which are purely private and local in their nature. That was the case in regard to the question affecting the position of the Collector General of Rates. But, further, the Committee did not propose to do away with the office of Collector General. What we did propose was that some of the functions of that official should be handed over to the Corporation, or some one whom the Corporation might nominate, while he should be left undisturbed in the exercise of his other functions. The hon. Member says that the outside townships object to be brought under the Corporation, but I can assure the House that we did nothing that could affect the interests of the out districts. It was originally proposed by the Corporation to do so, but the Committee threw out those provisions, and said at once that they did not intend to allow the Dublin Corporation to collect rates or exercise any jurisdiction outside their own area. Within their own area we thought they ought to occupy the same position as other Municipal Authorities in the United Kingdom, and be able to collect their own rates. The hon. Gentleman says that these clauses will enable the Corporation to disfranchise certain voters.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: What I said was that the clause creates an impracticable position which might lead to the Corporation having the ultimate control of the franchise, by having the control of all the functions of the Collector General in their hands.
  MR. HASTINGS: Upon that point what I have to say is that whether in England or in Ireland, it is on the poor rate that the qualification for voting depends, and the Committee particularly excluded from the Bill all provisions which would enable the Corporation to collect the poor rates. That duty was retained in the hands of the Collector General, while the collection of the municipal rates was relegated to the Corporation. I am quite aware that there are many Corporations in England who do not collect all their rates, as, for instance, the Police and Sanitary Committee have been in the habit of passing local Acts to enable municipal Corporations to collect all the rates within their own jurisdiction. We did not go as far as that, but we simply gave the Corporation of Dublin the municipal rates. Forty years ago, whatever the reason for it might be, an Act was passed which took away from Dublin the power which other Corporations possess, and we failed to see why we should continue that injustice. The Committee sat for about a week on this clause. We examined a number of witnesses, and we endeavoured, in the most painstaking way, to arrive at what we believed to be a correct conclusion. We believe that we did arrive at a correct conclusion, and that the best way of settling the question would have been for the Lords to accept our clause. They threw it out, and I have no doubt they were actuated by the highest motives in what they did. But I think that a more full and impartial consideration of the facts of the case would lead them to the conclusion that the Corporation of Dublin ought to have the power of collecting their own municipal rates. On behalf of the Committee I may add that we accept the clauses now proposed by the Chief Secretary as a fair compromise. The House has always been rightly jealous as to the taxing of the people in any way other than the House approves; and if, consequently, there is a division of opinion—as I fear there is—between the two Houses on this matter, surely it is not for the Commons to give way.
  MR. COURTNEY: May I ask the hon. Member for Worcestershire (Mr. Hastings) to supplement what he has stated, by pointing out in what way the proposals
  478
  of the Chief Secretary differ in form or substance from those approved by the Committee?
  MR. HASTINGS: Both of them propose to give the Corporation of Dublin the power of collecting the municipal rates. That is the principle upon which the Committee passed their clauses, and it is the principle of the clauses now submitted. I look upon all the rest as nothing more nor less than the machinery of the Bill, and I am willing to take any machinery that may be devised by the Government, rather than let the principle go. We propose to give to the Corporation the power of appointing an independent officer to collect the municipal rates. I threw out the suggestion that they should appoint the Collector General, if possible, and I believe that would be the best arrangement that could be come to. Under the clauses now proposed I understand that the Corporation would have the power of appointing an officer subordinate to the Collector General, and acting under him, in a sort of sub-office. The two things do not differ in principle, although they may in mechanism. Both aim at the same object, namely, to relieve the Corporation of Dublin from the stigma that they are not fit to collect their own rates. The right hon. Gentleman proposes also, as we proposed, that there shall be power on either side to give notice of the termination of the arrangement.
  MR. MACARTNEY: It will not be necessary for me to detain the House at any length in replying to the observations of the hon. Gentleman opposite, who acted as Chairman of the Select Committee. I would point out that we are not discussing the settlement of that Committee, a settlement in favour of which a good deal might be said, but a proposal which takes away all force from the petition of the Corporation of Dublin, and it would tend to secure economy and convenience to have a consolidated rate. Passing from that point, I wish to recall the attention of the House and of the Chief Secretary to the position of affairs as far as this House is concerned. The hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) has pointed out that the present settlement was arrived at in 1849. But I want to remind the House how the settlement

  479
  was arrived at. In that year there were three Bills before the House relating to the Corporation of Dublin, one by the Chamber of Commerce, one by the Corporation, and one by a Solicitor, who was supposed to be animated by a considerable amount of hostility to the Corporation. The result of the discussion which took place upon the Bills was a compromise which was agreed to by the then Chief Secretary. The three Bills were all withdrawn, but the Chief Secretary introduced as a Government measure the present Act, along with two other Acts, which were passed without opposition in the two Houses. It was admitted at the time that the question of the power of collecting the rates by the Corporation was the one that aroused party passions, and it was considered advisable to settle the question by appointing as collector some one who would be free from party influence, and who should be positively precluded from taking any part in party politics whatever. The question of the collection of the rates in Dublin has since 1849 been before the House from time to time, and in 1885 the Chief Secretary promised Mr. Gray to bring in a Bill to deal with the subject. In the meantime the appointment of Collector General was to be provisional. The Corporation of Dublin have now introduced a Bill privately. Its early initiation in the City of Dublin was somewhat peculiar. The Corporation appear to have accepted the Report of their Committee without discussion.
  MR. SEXTON: Not at all. The Corporation were bound by statute to hold two meetings, between which a meeting of the burgesses was to be held. It was therefore considered inexpedient to enter into a full description at the first meeting, but to reserve it until after the burgesses had had an opportunity of expressing their views.
  MR. MACARTNEY: The Bill was not adopted by the Corporation until after the meeting of the burgesses had been held.
  MR. SEXTON: That is the invariable rule in all Corporations.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I am afraid that I cannot accept that statement, because I believe it to be at variance with the proceedings of public bodies generally. The clauses the House is now asked to agree to practically give all that the
  480
  Corporation of Dublin demanded in their original Bill, and I would prefer that the Government should restore the original clauses, because they, at all events, are perfectly clear and distinct instead of giving what is asked for in confused language, and by cumbrous machinery. The course taken by the Government has been somewhat extraordinary. They had the opportunity of proposing these clauses in the House of Lords, but they refrained from doing so. On the contrary, they allowed the Bill to pass the House of Lords without a murmur. There were only two witnesses called before the Committee of the House of Lords—one of them, an Alderman of the City of Dublin, who confessed that he knew very little of the matter, and the other, the Collector General, who said that the plan proposed would be extravagant and unworkable, and would lead to unnecessary expenditure. I do not believe that the safeguard of the Lord Lieutenant will protect the interests that he is anxious to protect, and I am of opinion that nothing would create more disagreement than the clauses as now drafted. I hope the House will not consent to the clauses, because they would be countenancing an almost unprecedented procedure with regard to Private Bill legislation, and would not be promoting the interests concerned.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It would be idle to deny that the controversy in which we are now engaged has created in Dublin an amount of interest and almost of excitement which, though I accept the fact of its existence, I find it very difficult to understand. My hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone, who spoke first, used language which can only be interpreted as expressing the conviction that in bringing forward these Amendments I am betraying the Union. I was gratified when the hon. Member who sits next to him came to the rescue, because, if my opinions with regard to the Union are open to doubt, those of the hon. Member for Worcestershire have fallen under no such dark suspicion. Now, Sir, I hope to be able to convince the House that there is no justification whatever for the feeling of hostility which our proposals have excited. The clauses may be workable or unworkable, wise or unwise, but, at all events, they have been conceived in the interests of the

  481
  Dublin ratepayers, and there is nothing in them to arouse the suspicion of even the most suspicious Unionist in the City. The existing arrangement was made in 1849, when a consolidated rate was established, and the collection of it confided to a Collector General. I believe that system has worked fairly and economically, and that no system which could be substituted for it would be likely to work more fairly or more economically. So far, I am in entire agreement with my hon. Friends the Members for South Tyrone and South Antrim, and I should have been glad to see the existing system go on without alteration. But I think the House will agree with me that when a great Municipal Authority like the Dublin Corporation make a demand to be allowed to collect its own rates, this House, in the year 1890, cannot refuse to accede to the demand.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The demand is to collect the whole rate—the consolidated rate.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: They asked to collect the whole rate; but that, as far as I am concerned, I have never been prepared to give them. My argument, as the House will see, has brought us to this position, that the system of a consolidated rate collected by the Collector General is the most economical; and that if the Dublin Corporation desire to have the responsibility of collecting their own rates, their request ought to be granted. As a corollary from these two apparently irreconcileable propositions, I claim that the House should assent to these clauses. Our compromise, and our compromise, perhaps, alone, reconciles the two conflicting claims of municipal economy and municipal autonomy? It has, however, been violently objected to; and what is the character of the objection? The objection raised is this: that by the power given to the Corporation under these clauses, they would obtain such a control over the collection of that part of the consolidated rate, the payment of which confers the right to vote, that they would be able to use their power, if they wished, to manipulate the register in the interests of the Political Party to which the majority of the Corporation might happen to belong. I traverse that contention absolutely. No such power is conferred by the clauses on the Paper. What do we do by
  482
  these clauses? The Government introduce into the Collector General's Department what I may describe as a Sub-Department, consisting of one or two, or perhaps three gentlemen. What are the powers of this Sub-Department? It will have no right to collect the rates, or to manipulate the register, or to control the Collector General.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Who is to appoint the rate collectors?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am dealing now not with the collectors, but with the Sub-Department of the Collector's Office, and I ask what are the powers given to this Sub-Department? Will it have the right to control the Collector General to collect the rates or to manipulate the register? It will have none of those things. It will simply have the right to supervise the levying of the rate. The Dublin Corporation at present have no means of inspecting the books or of knowing how efficiently that part of the functions of the Collector General in which they are interested is carried out. They ask, therefore, for some power of supervision, and, so far as the Sub-Department is concerned, what is given by the clause could not be described as conferring any power which could be misused by the Corporation in the direction suspected by the hon. Members for South Tyrone and South Antrim. Let me come now to the collectors. According to these clauses, two-thirds of the collectors are, as vacancies occur, to be appointed by the Corporation, but these, together with the remaining third, will remain what they are now, servants of the Collector General and the Lord Lieutenant. The Corporation of Dublin, in short, will obtain certain rights of patronage, but of nothing more than patronage. This, my hon. Friend opposite says, will give them absolute control over the rates and the franchise. I say that it will do nothing of the kind. The speeches of the two hon. Gentlemen against those clauses have not contained any argument to show that the arrangement hands over a substantial power to the Corporation of manipulating the rate in any way whatever. All the collectors, whether appointed by the Corporation or not, will be the servants of the Collector General and, through the Collector General, of the Lord Lieutenant, and of nobody else.
  MR. MACARTNEY: My assertion was based on actual experience in the Revision Courts in Ireland.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Is there any case in Ireland in which the collectors of the consolidated rate have been the servants of any officers at all like the Collector General? My hon. Friend is speaking of a case in which the collectors of the poor rates are the servants of the Union; and possibly it may happen that where the Guardians have a strong political bias their servants may violate their duty to the public by manipulating the register in the interests of a preponderating Political Party. That may possibly occur; but if it does, I maintain that no argument can possibly be drawn from it affecting this case, because here the master of the collector is not a political body at all; he is a permanent official who, it is admitted, has been in the past and may be in the future kept entirely apart from any Party influences whatever.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: The valuers are Government officers in Ireland.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No doubt; but the theory of the objectors is that unless a man pays his poor rate before a certain date—the 1st of July, I believe—he is not qualified to vote during that year, and it is supposed that the collectors would deliberately decline to collect the poor rate of the Unionist voters, so as to prevent their being placed on the register.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Hear, hear.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I contend that the chief sufferers in this case would be the Corporation themselves, because they could not decline to collect the small fraction of the consolidated rate which is payable in respect of the poor without at the same time declining to collect the consolidated rate, of which two-thirds at least goes to the Corporation. The Corporation, therefore, would neither have the power nor the desire to carry out this manipulating of the register which is feared. Not the power, because the collectors would not be under their control. Not the desire, because they would be the chief losers by any default on the part of the ratepayers. But let me suppose the worst. Let me suppose that this economical arrangement will be impracticable; that the compromise will be
  484
  a worthless compromise, and that all the favourable anticipations I entertain are not fulfilled. The result will simply be that the arrangement will be brought to an end. My own conviction is that the Party most likely to bring them to an end would be the Corporation themselves. I do not believe that they cherish the dark designs attributed to them by my hon. Friend. If these collectors understand their own interests so little as to run the risk of dismissal at the hands of the Collector General by manipulating the register, of course the first thing would be to dismiss the offenders. The next thing to be done, if this proved insufficient, would be for the Government to step forward and say that the compromise suggested in the interests of the Dublin ratepayer was (contrary to their expectations) found to be unworkable; and, therefore, they would give the notice necessary to bring the arrangement to an end. When this was done, the mode of collecting rates in Dublin would be exactly that which my hon. Friend desires to have at present—
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: What about the financial arrangements?
  MR A. J. BALFOUR: By financial arrangements I presume my hon. Friend refers to superannuation, pensions, and matters of that kind. They were not provided for by the clauses agreed to by the House of Commons, but they are provided for in the clause now submitted, and this is another superiority which I think the plan of the Government has over the plan proposed by the Committee of the House of Commons. It possesses, indeed, two advantages over that plan. It gives a chance to the ratepayers of Dublin of being able to continue a system which makes the cost of collection exactly half what it would otherwise be; and, secondly, it secures to all the officials concerned the superannuation and pension which they have justly earned. Under these circumstances, I think it would be a great misfortune if this workable compromise were not carried out, and I should profoundly regret if either the House of Commons or the House of Lords were to decline to accept this settlement of a burning and most difficult controversy. A settlement which is favourable, as I believe, to the ratepayers of Dublin, and is certainly not

  485
  antagonistic to the interests of that Party, of which, in spite of the observations of my hon. Friend opposite, I still claim to be a Member.
  MR. SEXTON: I think the Chief Secretary for Ireland has made it perfectly clear that neither the hon. Member for South Tyrone nor the hon. Member for South Antrim can have read the clauses which they are opposing to-day. If they have read them they have been unable to appreciate them. I am not surprised at the observations which have been directed by the hon. Member for South Tyrone against the Chief Secretary, although I do not think the public in general will believe in a conflict in which the hon. Member for South Tyrone appears as the defender of the Legislative Union against the Chief Secretary. Every Grand Jury in Ireland, every Board of Guardians, and the most insignificant village authority already possesses greater powers than are asked for by the Corporation of Dublin. The hon. Member for South Antrim told us that he is willing to accept the original clauses of the Bill.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I said that I would have preferred them to the clauses now proposed.
  MR. SEXTON: The original clauses made the Corporation the sole collectors of poor rates in the City of Dublin, and gave the Corporation the sole power of appointing and removing the rate collectors, so that they would have possessed the power of manipulating the rates without the Lord Lieutenant having any right to remove them. We are told that human nature in Dublin is the same as human nature anywhere else; but I would suggest that temptation is usually the prelude to offence, and I must scout the idea that the Bill would offer temptations to the Corporation of Dublin to manipulate the register of votes, seeing that at present three of the Dublin seats are never contested at all, while, with regard to the fourth, Mr. Robert Sexton, the Unionist candidate, is one of the members of the Corporation promoting the Bill. With reference to the main point in the argument of the hon. Member, that the Bill undoes the settlement of 1849, my reply is that the ideas of Local Government have considerably altered since that time. Under the settlement of 1849,
  486
  moreover, the Corporation of Dublin were in the position of serfs, being subjected to such indignity and loss as the Government have never dared attempt to apply to any other Corporation in the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for South Tyrone says that there has been no complaint. What would have been the use of a complaint? We are next told that we ought to proceed by Public Bill. We have introduced Public Bill after public Bill, and to tell us now that we ought to proceed by Public Bill is a mockery amounting to a denial of justice. I deny that the present system has worked well and economically. The Corporation of Dublin have no control over the collection of the rates. They can make no audit. The audit made takes no account of most important matters. Every year there is a great and growing sum—at present it is about £15,000—returned by the Collector General as an uncollectable arrear, and the Corporation have no means of ascertaining whether that arrear is collectable or not. There are altogether from £50,000 to £60,000 of outstanding arrears, but they have to take the word of the Collector General for it. He is under no obligation to render accounts. The Corporation cannot procure any account from the Collector General, and such account as he is willing to give they have to take whenever he likes to give it them. Three months ago the City Accountant, on asking for the annual account to enable the Corporation to complete their accounts for the year, was told that the chief clerk in the Collector General's office was away, and had left word that the account was not to be given till he returned. I cannot say whether he has returned yet; but the demand was made three months ago, and the account is not furnished yet. The hon. Member for South Tyrone says that the present system is economical. Let me appeal from his word to his oath. In giving evidence before the Committee in May last, the hon. Member was asked whether he looked upon the system as economical, and he declined to give any decided opinion. That was his oath in May. We have now heard his word to-day, that it is a plan that works well and economically. Elsewhere than in Dublin the average cost of collecting the municipal rates is from 1 to 2 per cent., but the cost in Dublin is nearly 3½ percent

  487
  The Department besides has been a perfect nest of jobbery. It costs the city £10,000 a year, although, economically managed, it ought not to cost more than £5,000. Not long ago an officer was pensioned at £300 a year, and his son was immediately taken into the office at £190 a year, showing how well and economically managed the Department is. We are told that the Corporation are the only persons who support the Bill; but at the first meeting of the Corporation three gentlemen who were knighted by a Conservative Government supported it. There was subsequently a meeting of the burgesses, and after that a poll, in which the citizens, by a majority of 4,000 to 1,300, approved the Bill. What, then, was the need of producing special evidence before the Committee as to the views of the ratepayers? The Corporation all through have been willing to accept any reasonable proposal. The first proposition was to make the Corporation the sole collectors of all the rates. That was objected to. The second proposal was made by the Commons Committee, namely, that there should be two separate collections—the Corporation collecting the municipal rates and the Collector General the rest. The Lords Committee objected to that proposition, and we have now before us the proposal of the Chief Secretary, which, if adopted, will undoubtedly save the money of the ratepayers by providing for only one collection. It is proposed to introduce a compound collection, and if it should fail, either the Corporation or the Lord Lieutenant can institute a separate collection. Why should we be denied the opportunity of endeavouring to ascertain whether the expense of a double collection cannot be saved?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Why make the collection independent of the Collector General's Office?
  MR. SEXTON: The sweetness and the lightness of that observation must, I am sure, strike the sense of the House. At present the Collector General of Dublin collects the municipal rates, and the hon. Member objects to the proposal of the Government, because he does not wish the Corporation of Dublin, who are the representatives of the ratepayers, to be independent of the Collector General's Office. I can tell the hon. Member that the question about which he has grown
  488
  so excited to-day will never become a practical question. When vacancies occur, two-thirds are to be filled by the Corporation and one-third by the Lord Lieutenant; but if the collector of rates is guilty of any act of misconduct, it will be in the power of the Lord Lieutenant to remove him; and, although a sentiment of gratitude may remain towards those by whom the appointment was made, the rate collector will naturally look not to the person who appointed him, but to the person who can remove him. The reason which was alleged by the Committee of the Lords, in the first instance, for rejecting the Commons clauses has now disappeared. Ample provision is made for the Staff. It is said that the proposal is unprecedented, but it should be remembered that the grievance is unprecedented also. When a Committee of this House have unanimously determined, and the House itself has unanimously ratified the decision, that a reform shall be made in a matter affecting the taxation of the people, it is unprecedented to reject the decision in another place. The Bill has cost the Corporation of Dublin 20 months' hard labour and a good many thousands of pounds; and if, by a prolonged conflict on its main provision, the Bill is lost, something may happen more significant than any argument in this House, for it will be regarded as significant of the reception which is likely to be given in the House of Lords to the remedial policy of the Tory Party for Ireland—a policy which for the last four years they have declared to consist in the giving of the powers and functions of Local Government, as they are understood in this country, to the elected bodies of Ireland.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to point out that the powers so much deprecated by the hon. Member for South Tyrone have already been conferred on the town clerk of Dublin, Mr. Beveridge, against whom not one suggestion of a breach of duty has been made by the Dublin Unionist Party. The Collector General has no more to say to the franchise in Dublin than I have. [Mr. T. W. RUSSELL laughed.] The hon. Member laughs; but if he will not accept my authority, I hope he will accept that of Rogers on "Registration," and the Act of Parliament.

  489
  The provisions of the Representation of the People Act of 1867 were applied to Ireland for the first time in 1884, and they require that a demand note for the rates due must be served on every individual ratepayer; and if any officer wilfully withholds the presentation of the demand note, he is held to be guilty of a breach of duty rendering him liable to prosecution. He is further liable, under the same Act, to dismissal without notice. The official upon whom these duties are now imposed is the Parnellite town clerk of Dublin, and they were imposed upon him by this House when it contained not 16, but 40 Tory Members. In addition, it is the duty of the town clerk on or before the 15th of June to present a list of all persons whose rates are in arrear, so that they may not be unfairly disfranchised. No Unionist has ever complained of Mr. Beveridge. In fact, he served so many notices upon Nationalists last year that the four Revising Barrister's Courts were blocked for three weeks. Can it be suggested that Dublin alone, of all the constituencies, with its powerful majority, is going to perpetrate acts of corruption in order to retain a seat of which it is absolutely certain at the present moment? The law is entirely technical, and I assert without fear of contradiction that similar duties to those now proposed to be conferred are already exercised by the salaried officers of the Corporation, and that those duties have been fairly exercised and discharged.
  MR. COURTNEY: I am afraid that at the present moment we are in a position of some embarrassment partly on account of the heated atmosphere in which we have been living during the last half-hour, and partly because there has been thrown before us a number of clauses which we are asked to adopt without the possibility of giving them the examination which is usually given to the clauses submitted to a Committee on a private Bill. In this case all the questions of principle were submitted to a Committee of this House, which came to certain conclusions and passed the Bill. It then went to the House of Lords, where it was also considered. Therefore, it is far too late now to raise the objection that matters contained in a public Bill ought not to be dealt with by a private measure, even if that
  490
  objection ever had any real significance. I asked my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Police and Sanitary Committee to say exactly what the difference is between the new clauses proposed by the Chief Secretary and the scheme of the Bill, with reference to the collection of the rates, as agreed upon by the Committee; and he answered that the principle was precisely the same, only there was a difference in the machinery. Then there come the compensation clauses, to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone raises no objection; so that the whole difficulty, as I understand my hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone, is this new clause, which deals with the appointment of collectors and gives the appointment to the Corporation of Dublin as well as to the Lord Lieutenant. That is the whole scope of the Bill. I find some difficulty in understanding how the proposal will work. I doubt whether it will achieve what I understand is the intention of the Chief Secretary. One collector will be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant and two by the Corporation. The Chief Secretary justifies it on the ground that it is desirable to retain one-third of the control in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant. Will that always be realised? Let there be three collectors—A, B, and C, appointed in that chronological order. A is appointed by the Corporation, B by the Lord Lieutenant, and C by the Corporation. Suppose B dies first—out of his turn so to speak. The appointment of his successor will fall in due rotation to the Corporation, who will so nominate all three. Under other circumstances, the Lord Lieutenant would have two nominees out of the three. These results are not intended, and I was led to consider them by asking myself what would happen. Supposing one of the collectors negligently left the rate uncollected, and the Lord Lieutenant dismissed him. It occurs to me that the Corporation of Dublin might re-appoint him. What becomes of your controlling power if the Corporation re-appoints the man?
  MR. SEXTON: The Lord Lieutenant can dismiss him.
  MR. COURTNEY: Then if the Lord Lieutenant dismisses him it will be the Lord Lieutenant's turn to appoint. These

  491
  are some of the conundrums that might have been worked out before a Committee, and it is hardly possible that they can be worked out by the whole House.
  MR. SEXTON; I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that if anything like that state of affairs occurred, the Corporation would seek for an entirely separate collection.
  MR. COURTNEY: You need not break up the whole machinery because of a difficulty over one man. To sum up:—Although it is extremely inconvenient that a number of clauses should be considered in this way, I do not think, considering the whole circumstances of the case, that the House will be justified in objecting, as there is no real danger to be apprehended from their operation.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I can only speak with the indulgence of the House. I just wish to say to the Chief Secretary that, having brought in these clauses in the absence of most of the Unionist Members, the Government must take the responsibility of them.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I have also to state that I would have preferred the clauses in the original Bill to the clauses presented by the Government.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Consequential Amendments made.

QUESTIONS.

  IRISH PRIMARY TRAINING COLLEGES.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in equalising the position of the Irish Primary Training Colleges, account will be taken, in the case of the non-official colleges, of the special annual charges arising against their credit funds, owing to the disadvantage resulting from inequality of treatment up to the present time?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY OF IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me further time in which to make inquiry.

  SHADOWING.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Francis M'Kenna,
  492
  gunsmith, residing at Anagap, County Monaghan, was followed into the shops of Mr. Robert Graham, Monaghan, on Tuesday last, by Head Constable Montgomery, who prevented Mr. Graham selling to Mr. M'Kenna gun nipples, which he wanted for the purposes of his trade; whether Mr. M'Kenna has since been shadowed by two constables; and whether he can state the grounds upon which the police acted in this matter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that it is not the case that the head constable followed Mr. M'Kenna into the shop; neither did he prevent Mr. Graham from selling him the gun nipples, nor is it the case that he has since or at any time been shadowed by any policeman.

  A LICENSING CASE.
  MR. CRILLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that, at the Petty Sessions held in Belmullet, County Mayo, on the 12th of July, Mr. James Padden, the holder of a six days' licence, was fined by Mr. Dillon, R.M., 10s. and costs for having persons on his premises on Sunday, the only evidence being that of a police sergeant, who deposed that he saw two men going into the house; whether he is aware that it was proved that Mr. Padden's shop was locked; that he himself was not at home and that he had the keys with him; that the men whom the policemen saw only called to get change of a banknote; and that no drink at all was sold on the occasion; and whether, under these circumstances, the Law Officers of the Crown will advise the remission of the fine imposed on Mr. Padden?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that from the evidence adduced, the Court was satisfied that the men summoned had been on the premises in contravention of the Licensing Act. Mr. Padden had full power under the Act to appeal if he considered the decision wrong; but he did not do so. I am advised there is no ground for the course suggested in the last paragraph.

  BALLINA UNION—THE DEATH OF BRIDGET HOBAN.
  MR. O'KELLYfor Dr. FITZGERALD: I beg to

  493
  ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the death of Bridget Hoban, of Ballina Union, County Mayo; if he is aware that the death has been caused through the neglect of the officials of the union; that when the husband of the woman went to the doctor with an order to attend the wife on the 2nd of July, the doctor told him to go to hell; and if he will cause inquiry to be made into the circumstances of this case?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Local Government Board are informed by the acting clerk of the Ballina Union and by the honorary secretary of the Ballina Dispensary Committee that no complaint has been made either to the Guardians or to the committee with reference to the alleged neglect referred to.

  MR. JASPER TULLEY.
  MR. O'KELLY (on behalf of Dr. FITZGERALD): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the treatment of Mr. Jasper Tulley, editor of the Roscommon Herald, now a prisoner in Tullamore Gaol, if he can state what was the sentence imposed upon Mr. Jasper Tulley; is he aware that he is engaged in the labour of sack making, and that his hands are full of sores; that he has lost two stone in weight during the two months he has been in prison; and that he is now suffering from an attack of diarrhœa; and, if so, why is he not placed under hospital treatment; and if the sentence did not include hard labour, why is the work of sack-making imposed upon the prisoner?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As stated in reply to a question put by the hon. Member on 4th inst. the prisoner mentioned is undergoing concurrent sentences of 14 days' and three calendar months' imprisonment without hard labour. He was informed that he could be exempt from work by paying for his food. For four days, however, he did not take advantage of this, and was accordingly given some sacks to make. On the expiration of the four days he commenced payment for his food, and was forth with relieved from all work. But at his special request he was allowed by the Governor to have a few sacks for his personal
  494
  occupation on the clear understanding that it was at his own desire. There are no sores on the hands of this prisoner. He has lost nine and a half pounds, not two stone, in weight, from his reception into prison on 10th June up to the 9th inst. He is not suffering from the complaint mentioned, which only lasted for a few days, and ceased on 30th ultimo Sack-making is the chief form of industry in Tullamore Prison. It is engaged in by both hard labour and by such non-hard labour prisoners as do not pay for their food; but the latter class of prisoners receive a smaller quantity of this work to perform in a given time than the hard labour prisoners. I may add that I am informed that the Freeman's Journal of to-day contains a report from its Tullamore correspondent stating that Dr. Moorhead, J.P., had visited the prison on Saturday and found the prisoner in question in "excellent health and spirits," and that "there is no foundation for the prevailing rumours that he is in bad health."

  MR. FRANCIS J. KELLY, J.P.
  MR. JOHN KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an attempt was made to assassinate Mr. Francis J. Kelly, J.P., as he was driving out of his grounds near Ennis on the 1st instant, and that the outrage was denounced by the Rev. Father Walsh, P.P., at Mass at Banfield on the 3rd instant; and whether, as the result of such demonstration or otherwise, any of the three persons known to have been concerned in the attempted assassination has as yet been arrested? In the latter part of the question there is the word "denounced" instead of "enunciation."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that it is the case an attempt was made to assassinate Mr. Francis J. Kelly, J.P., two of the bullets lodging in the horse conveying him. This outrage was denounced as stated in the question. No result has as yet followed.

  LEVEL CROSSINGS.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received from the clerk of the County

  495
  Council for Cornwall a copy of a resolution passed unanimously at the last meeting of that body to the following effect:—
  "That a representation be made to the Board of Trade, urging that all level crossings in the County of Cornwall on public highways over main lines, and all others within the county that from their position or the amount of traffic are specially dangerous, should be abolished, and that in future no level crossings should be sanctioned;"
  and whether he proposes to take any, and what, action thereupon?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: No, Sir; the resolution referred to by the hon. Member has not reached the Board of Trade. With regard to the first paragraph quoted, the Board of Trade frequently make representations to Railway Companies in regard to level crossings which appear to them to be at all dangerous, recommending their abolition; but they have, generally speaking, no power to enforce their views in the case of railways constructed before 1863. As regards future level crossings, no such crossing is permitted unless authorised by Parliament after report by an Inspecting Officer of the Board of Trade. Reports of the officer adverse to level crossings have in the past been often overruled by the Committees, and arrangements have been made since the beginning of this Session for the attendance of the officer before the Committees when required.

  DR. HAYES.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the inquiry into the conduct of Dr. Hayes, dispensary doctor at Tralee, concerning his attendance on Charles Everett, deceased, promised on the 19th June last, has since been held; and, if so, with what result?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Local Government Board have investigated the matter, and obtained an explanation from the medical officer concerned, from which it appears that the ticket in question was only delivered at his house after 6 o'clock on the evening of the 22nd May. Not being marked "urgent," he did not immediately attend to it, as he had another call to make in the country besides cases in the town, which occupied
  496
  him until past 10 o'clock that night. Having regard to these facts, and considering that the medical officer had no intimation whatever as to the case being urgent, the Board do not think that he is to be blamed for deciding to postpone the visit till next morning.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Local Government Board will not give an instruction that these "urgent tickets" are filled up by the secretary? I believe the medical officers do not disregard the tickets when signed in that way.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Are these urgent tickets not of a different colour?
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: They are.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have made some recent modification, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway will put a question on the Paper.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The hon. Member says that the urgent tickets are, in fact, of a different colour to those presented to the doctor.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: The urgent tickets are red; but these, if distributed by the clerk, become an annoyance to the doctor. They should be given by the secretary.

  COUNTY MAGISTRATES.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will be willing to grant a Return showing the names of the Magistrates on every County Bench, the number of days upon which each Bench has sat in each of the years 1887, 1888, and 1889, and the number of attendances of each Magistrate in each of such years; and whether the information can be collected in the Recess, so that the Return may be made at the beginning of next Session?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,: Part of the information sought for by the hon. Member will be found in Return 356 of 1888. That Return was obtained only at the cost of a great deal of labour and annoyance to many excellent Magistrates. I should not be prepared to continue it, or to seek to obtain the additional particulars asked for in the question.

  LICENCES TO CARRY ARMS.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether it is the law that in all cases of application for licence to remove or carry arms in Ireland, the Inspector General for Constabulary must be satisfied by proof, other than the word of the applicant, as to the ownership of the arms which he claims; what sort of proof is required, and how is the inquiry conducted; what sort of proof had the Inspector General, other than the word of Mr. Brown as against that of Mr. Pollock, upon which he decided to refuse Mr. John H. Pollock, of 25, Polmadie Street, Glasgow, a licence to remove some old and useless arms from his house in Glenlough, County Monaghan, to his residence in Glasgow; and whether he will order the issue of the necessary licence for removal to Mr. Pollock, and leave the dispute as to ownership of the arms to be settled between Mr. Pollock and Mr. Brown?
  MR. MADDEN: I am not aware of any enactment regulating the nature of the proof to be given in respect to the ownership of arms. The Constabulary Authorities report that the ground of refusal to issue a licence to Mr. Pollock was the fact that the arms were in the possession of Mr. Brown, who claimed them and refused to give them up. So soon as the arms are in the possession of Mr. Pollock the necessary licence will be issued to him.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that this house belongs to Mr. Pollock, and why did the authorities interfere with him when taking the arms out of his own house?
  MR. MADDEN: No, Sir; obviously the proper person to whom the licence is to be granted is the owner of the arms.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: The arms might have been taken away without the matter being mentioned at all to the authorities.
  MR. MADDEN: The position is that the arms were represented as lost.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: If a man has arms in Ireland without a licence, is he not liable to be prosecuted by the police?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  SCOTCH PAROCHIAL BOARDS—FEMALE ELECTORS.
  MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the fact that, at the election of elected Members of the Parochial Board of Loth, Sutherlandshire, on the 2nd instant, two women voted for Messrs. Dudgeon and Rutherford, the successful candidates; whether women are entitled to vote at the election of members of Parochial Boards; whether the Receiving Officer acted within his powers in receiving such votes; and whether the election of the aforesaid gentleman is thereby invalidated?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,: I am not acquainted with the case mentioned except through the question of the hon. Gentleman. As matter of practice, women frequently vote at the election of members of Parochial Boards in Scotland, and are sometimes elected and act as members of those Boards. Their right to do so has never, so far as I am aware, been questioned. The electors are described by Section 23 of the Poor Law Act as the persons from whom the assessments are levied. Women are certainly so assessed when owners or occupiers, and there is an express enactment in the first section that every word importing the masculine gender shall extend to a female as well as a male. Should, however, anyone concerned in the election referred to desire to have the question authoritatively settled, he can go to the Sheriff under the 27th section of the Act.

  CAB LICENCES IN ABERDEEN.
  MR. HUNTER: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate what is the result of his inquiries into the neglect of the Police Authorities and Procurator Fiscal of Aberdeen to prosecute cabmen plying for hire in Aberdeen without licences?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The facts of this case are as follows: A strike took place among the Aberdeen cabmen, and certain cabs were driven for a few days by men not holding licences. Information was lodged with the Burgh Fiscal against several of these men, and information was also lodged against several

  499
  of the men on strike for acts of intimidation. The strike came to an end, and the Authorities considered that the interests of the public and of all parties would be best served by no prosecutions being instituted. In abstaining from prosecuting the men for driving without licences, which is a contravention of a clause in a local statute, the Burgh Fiscal acted in accordance with his own discretion, and after consultation with the Magistrates, but I am informed that the course thus adopted has met with the approval of gentlemen representative of the Cabmen's Union.

  CASE OF GEORGE BUCKLEY.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN, on behalf of Dr. COMMINS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is true that George Buckley, late 3rd Brigade Royal Artillery, who is in receipt of a pension of 1s. 2d. a day, is at present an inmate of Richmond Lunatic Asylum; whether he is aware that Buckley's wife, a native of England, is in receipt of out-door relief from the ratepayers of Roscommon Union, and that, in reply, to a recent application, the Guardians were informed, in a communication from the War Office, that, after deducting the amount contributed by Parliament towards the maintenance of the lunatic, and the claims made by the Governors of the asylum for the additional cost of maintenance, only a balance of 2s. 7d. remained towards meeting the maintenance of Mrs. Buckley for the last three months; why has a different principle been adopted regarding the quarter ending 31st March, 1890, when a sum of only 2s. 7d. was available for Mrs. Buckley, and the quarter ending 31st December, 1889, when one-half the pension was remitted to the Guardians; and whether he will make some arrangement under which a portion of Buckley's pension may go towards relieving the ratepayers of Roscommon from the cost of maintaining his wife?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,: The facts are as stated; and are the result of the Superannuation Act of 1887. I have already stated that the effect of that Act in this matter came upon me as a surprise; and I am
  500
  pledged to consider with the Treasury whether any remedy can be brought about by legislation next Session.

  ROYAL COMMISSIONS.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government will grant the Return relating to Royal Commissions, standing in my name on this day's Orders?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: The hon. Member appears to have overlooked a Return of 1887, in which the greater part of the information he asks for is contained.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I think the Return for which I ask is a Parliamentary Paper in 1888. Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman that there is a Return bringing up the information from 1875 down to the year 1887? because that would go a long way to satisfy MR.
  MR. JACKSON: I have not seen the Return, but I am informed that it is in existence.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I feel assured that it does not correspond with what I ask. I will, however, make inquiry.

  MINERS' DISEASE.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has taken any steps to obtain any reliable statistics as to the prevalence of, and the excessive mortality arising from, phthisis or miners' disease amongst the miners of Devon and Cornwall; whether he is aware that the majority of the Friendly and Benefit Societies in those counties refuse to accept the miners as members, owing to the excessive death rate arising from this cause; whether he is aware that the miners' clubs in the various mines, supported by contributions deducted from the men's wages, make provision only for accidents, and not for sickness resulting from the insanitary conditions under which they work; and whether he can furnish a Return, showing for each of the years 1880–90, the number and ages of the miners in the stannaries of Cornwall and Devon who have died from miners' disease or the diseases allied thereto.
  MR. MATTHEWS: The Inspector having reported to me that the

  501
  causes which led to the high death-rate have been almost entirely eliminated, and that the next Report of the Registrar General will probably show a decreased mortality among Cornish miners, I have not considered it necessary to anticipate that Report by endeavouring to obtain statistics as to the prevalence of miners' disease in Cornwall.
  MR. CONYBEARE: What I want the right hon. Gentleman to appreciate is that there is a difference of opinion in the country on the subject, and whether he does not see his way to prosecute further inquiry for the satisfaction of the country.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has not yet read the Report of the Inspectors, which is in my office. I will send it to him.

  THE DEATH OF MARY M'KEOWN.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the evidence of Ellen M'Keown, at the inquest touching the death of her daughter Mary M'Keown, held before Dr. Thomas J. M'Grath, Coroner, to the effect that—
  "Before the clergy condemned ether drinking, the deceased would take a teaspoonful of ether occasionally. I take ether myself, and the children buy a naggin or half-a-pint of it for me when they are in the market,"
  and to the following Report of the summing up of the Coroner, published in the Tyrone Constitution, of 1st August—
  "The Coroner, in summing up the evidence, said, ether drinking has obtained a terrible hold on the people of the locality, and is procurable, as appears from the evidence of the mother of the deceased, at any public house within a radius of 10 miles. During the progress of the case, the witness seemed to be greatly under the influence of ether, and I hope that every exertion will be made to assist the Rev. Mr. M'Namee to put a stop to ether drinking;"
  and whether he will give instructions to the constabulary to collect evidence as to the traffic in ether in the County of Tyrone?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that at the inquest mentioned the witnesses and Coroner expressed themselves in the manner indicated in the question with regard to the practice of ether drinking. The Constabulary
  502
  Authorities are obtaining details as to the traffic in ether throughout the county.
  SIR W. LAWSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information in his possession as to the purchase of whisky?
  MR. A. J BALFOUR: I have the information in my possession that it prevails to a serious extent.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman support a Private Bill on the subject?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe, according to my present information, that this evil is confined to a small district, but in that district I believe it to be very serious.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is the chemical head of the Excise Department aware of the evidence given before a Select Committee of this House as to the strength of pure alcohol?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know that.

  THE REGULATION OF RAILWAYS ACT.
  MR. AGG-GARDNER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the 6th section of "The Regulation of Railways Act, 1889," has been brought into full operation; and, if not, what are the Railway Companies which are exempted from complying with its provisions, and what are the reasons for such exemptions, if any?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: By 42 Railway Companies the provisions of the section referred to are already in operation. As regards some of the others, including the larger companies, whose stock of tickets amount to many millions, the 1st January, 1891, has been fixed by the Board of Trade as the date from and after which passenger tickets are to bear on their face the fare chargeable for the journey.

  THE CASE OF JEREMIAH BROSNAN.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN; I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a Judgment delivered by Mr. Justice O'Brien on the 6th instant, in which the following occurs:—
  "It would be a serious matter to lay down a rule that every person who sold a single copy of a newspaper could be sued for what it contained.

  503
  That might be so; but it would be a dangerous rule to lay down as affecting the liberty of the Press, and it would be a rule that would give rise to a great amount of litigation;"
  whether his attention has also been called to the case of a man named Jeremiah Brosnan, newsvendor, Killarney, who was sentenced in November, 1887, by Messrs. Cecil Roche and Captain Hutchinson, R.M.'s, to a month's hard labour, for publishing United Ireland, in which case the only connection with the "publishing" of the paper proved in evidence was that Brosnan sold a copy to a policeman in the ordinary way of trade; whether he is aware that Denis M'Namara, newsvendor, of Ennis, was several times imprisoned on a similar charge by Resident Magistrates; and whether, in view of the Judgment of Mr. Justice O'Brien, he will take steps to prevent similar prosecution in the future?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My attention has been called to the Judgment of the learned Judge. I am advised that that Judgment has no bearing on the convictions referred to. Neither of the cases referred to was that of a sale of a single copy of a newspaper, but of continued sale after frequent warning and with full knowledge of the nature of this act.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only the sale of one paper was proved?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot answer that.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember the case where the policeman begged a single copy of United Ireland, and then got the man three months' imprisonment?

  THE ATTACK ON CATHOLICS AT BELFAST.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what were the circumstances of the attack on a number of Catholics at Queen's Island, Belfast, on Wednesday morning last; whether any arrests have been made; what inquiries have been instituted, and with what result; and whether, in pursuance of the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Belfast riots, the Government will establish a police station at Queen's Island, as now requested by Petition to the Lord Lieutenant?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that the excursion party numbered about 800. The starting-point was opposite the Queen's Island, where over 5,000 workmen are employed. The band with the excursionists played in the hearing of the workmen what is regarded as a Party air, and commenced singing and cheering. Bolts or nuts were thrown by some of the workmen, but no injury was done to any person except a boy, who received a bruise from being struck on the forehead, but he received no serious injury. No injury was done to the vessel. Every effort has been made to identify the assailants by the local police, but so far without success. The manager of the works states that none of his foremen or responsible men knew what happened until all was over. The Petition referred to in the last paragraph has been received, and will have due consideration.

  LARNE AND STRANRAER MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether application has yet been made to the Railway Companies in connection with the proposed acceleration of the Mail Service by the Larne and Stranraer route; and, if so, with what result; whether a time table has been produced by the companies, showing that the English mails now due in Belfast, viâ Holyhead, about noon, and often delayed in delivery, as on three occasions last week, till after 2 p.m., would be delivered in Belfast before 9 o'clock in the morning; and whether, as the case involves important commercial interests, it will be brought to an issue without delay?
  A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. MAXWELL,: No application has been made to the companies owning the railways and steamboat associated with the Stranraer and Larne route, and the Postmaster General did not undertake to make such application. As I stated a few days ago, the Postmaster General is open to receive and consider any offer which may be made for the conveyance of mails by that route. A time table has been sketched out by one of the companies interested, but I have not heard in what light the other companies regard it.

  THE EDITORS OF THE WATERFORD NEWS AND WATERFORD CITIZEN.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how the amount of £30, offered to the editors of the Waterford News and Waterford Citizen for one day's illegal detention in gaol, has been arrived at; has his attention been called to the case of Mr. Henry O'Connor, of the Leinster Leader, sentenced to a month's imprisonment with hard labour, on a conviction quashed as illegal by the Court of Exchequer after Mr. O'Connor had been four days in gaol; is he aware that Mr. Justice O'Brien decided that Mr. O'Connor has no legal remedy for the wrongful conviction and detention, and that his action for false imprisonment against the Resident Magistrates (Colonel Forbes and Sub-Inspector Mercer) must be non-suited; and, in view of the fact that Mr. O'Connor's solicitor proved that he incurred nearly £30 costs in procuring the mandamus from the Queen's Bench, compelling the "case stated," which procured his release, independent of the costs of his defence, and that it was on the argument of the Crown Lawyers that this gentleman was held to have no legal remedy, will the Government offer any compensation to Mr. O'Connor, following the principle on which the Waterford editors, without any judicial decision, have been compensated for a shorter confinement?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not the information necessary to enable me to answer.
  MR. SEXTON: This question has been down three times, and last time it was postponed at the request of the Attorney General. The question is an important one, and, if it is not answered, we must raise a discussion on the Appropriation Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope to be ready to-morrow.

  NON-COUNTY BOROUGHS AND COUNTY COUNCILS—FINANCIAL RELATIONS.
  MR. ROWNTREE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if the Government would assent to a Return showing the financial relationship of the Non-County Boroughs and the County Councils of the counties
  506
  in which they are situate during the past year, including the amount of the local taxation licences and of the Probate Duty raised in the said boroughs respectively, and also showing the total amounts received by the said boroughs in aid of their local taxation during the two years 1887 and 1888?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: As regards the licences issued by the Inland Revenue officers, the difficulties of making such a Return as that suggested would be almost insuperable; and with respect to licences issued at post offices—amounting to nearly £900,000—it would be impossible to make the analysis which the Return would require. Neither would it be practicable to make any statement as to the Probate Duty raised in the different Non-County Boroughs.

  PARLIAMENTARY REGISTERS: NEW CASTLE-UNDER-LYME.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whose duty it is to prepare the Register of Parliamentary and County Electors for the borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme, and who should sell copies of these Registers to the public?
  MR. RITCHIE: It was the duty of the Town Clerk of the Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme to prepare the Register of Parliamentary Electors and the Burgess Roll, and to sell copies thereof to the public. I have made inquiry, and regret to find that there has been great delay in the issue of the Parliamentary Register, but I understand that copies will be obtainable after Wednesday next. I am informed that the Burgess Lists for the Borough were ready in October last. The law imposes a penalty on any officer for wilful acts of omission contrary to the Registration of Electors Act. But I understand the Town Clerk, by whom the documents in question should have been prepared, died in April last.

  CIVIL SERVICE HOLIDAYS.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that while in various offices of the Civil Service many Second Division clerks who entered the Service antecedent to

  507
  the recent Order in Council are entitled to 28, and in some instances to 32, days' leave, clerks of a similar grade in the Custom House are receiving only 21 days' leave; and whether he will in some measure rectify this irregularity by granting to those Second Division clerks in the Custom House, who have occupied that position continuously for 10 years and upwards, 28 days' leave of absence?
  MR. JACKSON: Clause 8 of the Order in Council of the 21st of March, 1890, prescribes 21 week days (in addition to the usual public holidays) as the maximum of ordinary leave to be granted to Second Division clerks of more than five years' service, but saves existing rights. The Order in Council gives no power to extend the amount of annual holidays beyond 21 week days in the case of Second Division clerks who were not allowed longer holidays under Departmental Regulations before the Order in Council was issued.

  MOONLIGHTERS AT SCARIFF.
  MR. J. KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has seen the statement in the Dublin Express newspaper of the 6th instant, that the house of a bog ranger named Donellan, near Scariff, was attacked by moonlighters on the 5th instant, and that some of the shots fired by them wounded Donellan's son; and whether any arrests have been made in connection with the outrage?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that it is the case that at about 12 midnight on the 5th instant, John Donnellan's house was fired into, two revolver bullets entering and wounding his son. Donnellan is not a bog ranger, but works for a man who had taken part of a bog which some tenants expected to have kept for themselves. No arrests up to the present have been made.
  MR. COX: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of his own statement a short time ago that 168 extra police were employed in the county, at a cost for the year ending 31st March, of £5,603, he will now think well to remove these extra police, who are useless?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think the extra police are useless.
  MR. COX: They have not succeeded in making a single arrest.

  SIR LINTORN SIMMONS.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the following statement of Sir Lintorn Simmons:—
  "His Holiness expressed his desire that all Her Majesty's subjects should perform their duties to their Sovereign loyally, seeing that the Church in the Queen's dominions was free, and mentioned that during the Duke of Norfolk's Mission he had publicly spoken in this sense."
  And whether any records of these observations exist; and, if so, whether they can be produced?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,: In the Duke of Norfolk's Report of his reception by the Pope, on the 17th December, 1887, he says—
  "I handed to the Pope my letter of credence. His Holiness then rose and delivered, without any notes, in French, the speech, copy of which I have the honour to transmit herewith."
  In his Report of that speech, which extends only over 15 lines of print, occurs this passage, after expressing his appreciation of Her Majesty's letter and his thanks for her choice of an envoy—
  "We wish the more on this particularly propitious day to attest publicly our great satisfaction for the liberty which the Catholic Religion enjoys in all the vast dominions of the British Empire and which permits it to prosper more and more."
  The other words quoted by the hon. Member do not appear in the Report. But I must point out that the Despatch of Sir L. Simmons in no way bears out the hon. Member's allegation that they were used on the occasion of the Duke of Norfolk's reception, and I think that his having so represented it requires explanation. He has, in fact, not correctly quoted the published correspondence. Sir L. Simmons says, on December 10th, 1889 (No. 3)—
  "His Holiness at a public audience at which I was received, replied in a speech which lasted more than 10 minutes, in which he expressed his desire that all Her Majesty's subjects should perform their duties loyally and faithfully and should respect the law seeing that the Church in the Queen's vast dominions was free and unfettered, and that liberty prevailed throughout in an admirable manner. In regard to this liberty he maintained during the Duke of

  509
  Norfolk's Mission he had publicly spoken in this sense, and he desired to repeat what he had then said upon the subject."
  MR. SUMMERS: Perhaps I may be allowed to explain that I put down, verbatim et literatim, the words used by Sir Lintorn Simmons, but the question was mutilated by the clerks at the Table.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I find that a summary given in French of Sir Lintorn Simmons's speech to the Cardinal does not at all bear out the Despatch sent by Sir Lintorn Simmons to the Marquess of Salisbury.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: That is not a matter with which I am at present concerned. The passage which the hon. Member quotes is in Sir Lintorn Simmons's Despatch.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will remember that there were words omitted by arrangement with him.
  MR. SUMMERS: I submitted my question with the words of Sir L. Simmons set out verbatim, but the clerk, with a view to brevity, thought certain words should be omitted, and I assented, preferring to have the question put in a mutilated shape to not being put at all.

  THE IRISH JUDICIAL BENCH.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant whether he adheres to his declaration that the Government are compelled by law to fill the vacancies on the Irish Judicial Bench as they arise?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I apprehend that unless some considerable modifications were made in the existing conditions of the Judicial Bench in Ireland it would be necessary to fill up the vacancies.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I wish to ask whether, seeing that on both sides of the House there is an opinion that the Irish Bench is overmanned, and that there is a desire that the vacancy at present existing should not be filled up, the right hon. Gentleman will promise that it shall not be filled up while Parliament is not sitting?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is very likely not to be filled up while Parliament is not sitting.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Then has the Government a suspensory power over the law?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course there is a suspensory power in the hands of the Government. The fact that there is a vacancy does not make it necessary to fill it up immediately.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: This occurred three months ago.
  MR. SEXTON: Is the Government aware of any person suitable to fill the vacancy?

  THE NATIONAL GALLERY.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the fact, as stated in the Times newspaper of the 8th instant, that the Trustees of the National Gallery have contracted to purchase four or more pictures from the Earl of Darnley; and to what authors these pictures are attributed; and whether this purchase is to be effected out of moneys already voted by Parliament, or whether a Supplementary Estimate will be presented for the purpose?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's,: It is true that the Board of the National Gallery have been negotiating the purchase from the Earl of Darnley of three pictures—namely, two by Paul Veronese and one by Tintoretto. The money will be provided out of the ordinary Parliamentary Vote for the National Gallery.

  THE LATE CONSUL BARKER.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the case of Mrs. Barker, widow of the late Consul Barker, regarding unlawful ejectment from the family house at Aleppo, he will cause a communication to be made to the Turkish Government on the subject, with a view to redress being afforded in the event of wrong being done, or to expedite the decision of the case by the Turkish Authorities?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople has for some time past had this case under his I notice, and has lost no opportunity of endeavouring to obtain a settlement. Inquiry will be made whether any denial of justice is taking place.

  BRITISH GUIANA.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any conclusion has been come to as to the new form of Legislature for the Colony of British Guiana; and, if so, whether he can say, approximately, when the new Council will be constituted, and whether it is proposed to make provision that the new Council shall be presided over by some official other than the Governor?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WOEMS,: The Secretary of State has not yet come to any decision which can be communicated to the House.

  DALMUIR POSTAL DELIVERIES.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that great inconvenience is caused to a considerable number of the inhabitants of Dalmuir, near Glasgow, in consequence of the late delivery of English and Irish letters, which reach the local office about 8 a.m., and are not delivered for several hours; whether this delay is caused by the postman having to pass through Dalmuir in order to deliver first the letters at certain suburban residences, carrying with him the correspondence of the general public for delivery on his return journey, and whether he will cause prompt delivery to the greater number instead of the few?
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: Unfortunately, the information for which I asked has not arrived; but I have given directions for it to be forwarded.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is now in a position to state to the House the total number of members in registered Friendly Societies, and the amount of funds belonging to such Societies, also the total income and expenditure of such Societies for the year 1888, the last year for which the Registrar of Friendly Societies has made any Return; and whether it is possible to get out these Returns annually at an earlier date?
  MR. JACKSON: I am informed that he information asked for cannot be given until the Quinquennial Returns f the Friendly Societies Registrar are made.
  MR. HOWELL: May I ask when these Returns are to be taken?
  MR. JACKSON: I take it every five years.
  MR. HOWELL: Yes; but it is more than four years since they were ordered.

  TRADE SOCIETIES AND THE POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has refused certain Trade Societies, whose rules provide for sick, funeral, and other provident benefits for their members, the right of depositing in the Post Office Savings Bank, within the limit of £100 in any one year, or ,£300 in all, allowed to all Provident Societies by law; and, if so, on what grounds; whether the total deposits in the Post Office Savings Banks amount to about 64 millions sterling, and the total deposits standing to the credit of Trade Unions is less than one million sterling; whether in the entire history of the Savings Banks there has ever been any inconvenience, or loss, by reason of the withdrawal of such deposits, or anything to show that such is probable; and, if so, whether he will grant a Return showing such, together with the amount of the total deposits of Trade Societies to the close of the last year; and whether it is the intention of the Government to refuse deposits from Trade Unions on the same conditions that such deposits have been received for a quarter of a century, on account of any supposed danger alleged to be possible by the withdrawals of the funds of Trade Unions in a possible labour crisis?
  MR. GOSCHEN: As I am responsible for what is suggested in this question, I will ask the hon. Gentleman to allow me to answer it. The hon. Member is aware that the Government recently undertook to consider further the matter referred to in his question, and I may state that on the 6th instant the Postmaster General caused letters to be addressed to the Secretaries of the Societies which had regulations containing the rules alluded to (and which had recently made application to him) intimating that he

  513
  accepted their deposits within the limits mentioned by the hon. Member. These letters have, doubtless, reached their respective destinations. The statement made in the second paragraph of the hon. Member's question is substantially correct. I do not know that there has been any loss attributable to the withdrawal of the deposits. With regard to the fourth paragraph, I should be glad, if possible, to put this matter on a more satisfactory footing.
  MR. HOWELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend this to apply to Societies having benefit fees?
  MR. GOSCHEN: No; I have no objection within the limit suggested in the first part of the question—£100 for one year.

  THE IRISH CONSTABULARY 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: The present capital of the Constabulary Force Fund amounts to £144,000, invested in Three per Cent. Local Loans Stock. The income from all sources for the year to March 31, 1890, amounted to over £19,000. The expenditure in that year amounted to over £14,000. The accounts of the fund are kept in the Royal Irish Constabulary office, and are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. No periodical statements have been published. The Constabulary Force Fund must be divided into two parts—namely: (1) a Reward Fund; and (2) an Insurance Fund. Hitherto these two funds have been administered as one, but it is now intended to separate them, and my answer must be understood to refer to the second, or Insurance Fund. This Insurance Fund is a fund established a long time ago for the benefit of widows and children of members of the Force. It was intended to be self-supporting,
  514
  being fed by deductions from the pay and pensions of subscribers. Under the Constabulary Act of 1883 no one entering the Force after June 18, 1883, can contribute to the fund or become entitled to its benefits. It is, therefore, in process of being wound up. I regret to say that although at the present time the annual income fully meets the annual expenditure, the fund itself is insolvent—that is to say, the assets of the fund will not suffice to meet the engagements of the fund by an amount probably not less at present value than £180,000. It is, of course, a grave matter for the Government in such a case to ask for aid from the Exchequer. The subject has been closely examined and discussed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself, and we are glad to say that we have arrived at an agreement upon it. It is no doubt the fact that although the fund was intended to be self-supporting, and although the Exchequer has not been a contributor to, and has undertaken no liability towards the fund, yet the Government have promised benefits in excess of what the funds will bear, and disappointment would not unreasonably follow the non-fulfilment of such promise. Bearing these facts in mind, and highly appreciating the trustworthiness and efficiency of the Force, we hold it of great importance that no member of the Force should have legitimate cause for complaint, and although objection might not unfairly be taken to several of the conditions on which the fund is administered, we have decided not to alter those conditions on essential points. At the proper time, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make to the House of Commons such proposals as will restore the fund to solvency, and contributors to the Constabulary Force Fund may rest assured that, so far as the Government is concerned, the benefits promised will be made good. The Reward Fund will consist of certain fines and penalties, out of which certain rewards, &c., will be paid, but the amount of these rewards will, of course, be limited by the amount of the fund.
  MR. SEXTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to showing the progress of the fund? It is a public fund, and we really ought to have some account.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know that it is exactly a public fund, but I know of no objection, and I will see that it is done.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Is it the case that £144,000 is at present divided between the Reward and Insurance Fund?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot answer that question. I shall be glad to answer it if the hon. Gentleman will put it down.

  THE CASE OF WILLIAM CHENEY.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that up to the present no compensation has been awarded by the Treasury to William Cheney, of Rushden, Northants, who was illegally subjected to hard labour in Northampton Gaol while undergoing a short sentence for failure to comply with a vaccination order; whether he is aware that William Cheney was in bad health previous to imprisonment, and has suffered in health from being forced to work on the treadmill and has been unable to work; and whether he will make further representations to the Treasury as to the question of compensation for Cheney?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Inquiries have been made by the Treasury Solicitor, and he cannot ascertain that either the Magistrates, or their clerk, or the Governor of the prison have received any complaint or application from Cheney. According to the information supplied to me by the Prison Authorities, Cheney was in good health on reception and on discharge. In the absence of any complaint or application from this man, I am not in a position to make any further representation to the Treasury on the subject.
  MR. CHANNING: But am I not right in understanding the right hon. Gentleman to have stated that the man is entitled to compensation because he has suffered hard labour contrary to the law?
  MR. MATTHEWS: If the man has suffered injury, the State will be perfectly prepared to consider his compensation.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Has not a similar case been decided where a man recovered compensation against the Magistrate?
  MR. CHANNING: Apart from any physical injury he may have sustained, is not the man entitled to compensation for having been put to hard labour contrary to law?
  [No answer.]

  THE ARMENIAN CLERGY.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a copy of the Memorial of the Ecclesiastical Assembly of the Armenians, addressed to the Patriarch, was received by the Foreign Office in March last, and communicated by the Foreign Office to Sir William White, complaining that the privileges of the Armenian clergy and the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts, guaranteed in the 47th article of the Constitution, in relation to questions of marriage, legitimacy, and inheritance, have been set aside, and that the printing of the Armenian prayer and hymn books, and the Gospels, and of the historical books authorised by the Minister of Public Instruction has been prohibited, and asking for a remedy for these grievances; whether the Patriarch Achikian received an unfavourable reply to the prayer of the Memorial from Sureya Pacha; and whether Sir William White will be instructed to urge formally on the Porte the restitution and protection of these privileges?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: (1) Yes, from the Ex-Secretary General of the Armenian Patriarchate; (2) Her Majesty's Government have 110 information as to the reception which the Memorial has met with at the hands of the Porte; (3) Her Majesty's Ambassador, to whom a copy of the Memorial was sent, has not advised that any advantage would be gained by his supporting the demands of the memorialists, and Her Majesty's Government, therefore, do not propose to take any steps in the matter at present.
  MR. CHANNING: In consequence of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will draw attention to the subject.

  DISMISSED POSTMEN.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, according to statements published in the Daily News, the police have refused, to many of

  517
  the recently-dismissed Post Office employés, the licences necessary to enable them to take other employment, such as cab drivers and omnibus conductors; upon what ground and by whose authority have these measures been adopted; and whether he will issue instructions that the police shall not interfere with their attempts to gain fresh employment?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that it is not the case that licences as cabdrivers and omnibus conductors have been refused by the police to ex-Post Office employés by reason of their having left that Department, and there is no reason for me to give any instructions on the subject.
  MR. CONYBEARE: It was by reason of their having been dismissed that they were refused.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have given the hon. Member the information I received.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that some of the recently dismissed postmen who belonged to the Volunteers have been expelled from that Service, and that in other cases licences to take other employment, such as cab drivers and omnibus conductors, have been refused by the police; upon what grounds have the men been thus treated; and whether, in order to relieve the urgent necessities of a large number of the men who are still out of employment, and who, owing to the uncertainty as to their possible reinstatement, cannot find fresh employment, he will do his utmost to determine with all possible speed what is to be their fate?
  SIR H. MAXWELL (for the POST-MASTER GENERAL): The first part of the hon. Member's question would perhaps have been more properly addressed to the Secretary of State for War, but I understand that under the terms of their enlistment those of the recently dismissed postmen who were in the 1st Class Army Reserve have been removed from the Reserve. Upon the case of the others, who were Volunteers, no decision has yet been arrived at by their Commanding Officer. I understand that upon the case of these unfortunate men a decision has been arrived at by the Postmaster General, and will be announced immediately.

  SOUTH AFRICA.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government, when they approve, in Article 6 of the New Convention of the South African Republic, making Treaties to secure the right to construct a railway to and a harbour at or near Kosi Bay, have taken into consideration the rights for similar and other purposes acquired by British subjects by concessions from the Queen Zambili?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Various alleged concessions have been brought to the notice of Her Majesty's Government by different parties, each claiming to have acquired rights which conflict with the claims of others, and, as Her Majesty's Government have not recognised any of these concessions, I cannot admit the inference of fact on which my hon. Friend has based his question.
  SIR R. FOWLER: On the same subject, I wish to ask my right hon . Friend whether his attention has been called to the statement of the Durban Correspondent of the Times that President Krüger has stated to the Volksraad that Her Majesty's Government have promised not to object to the annexation of Swaziland to the Transvaal whenever the affairs of the country are properly regulated?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: I cannot believe that such a statement was made; there is no foundation for it.

  ATHLONE WORKHOUSE MASTER.
  MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Athlone Board of Guardians have again elected Mr. Peter Keogh to be Master of the Workhouse, and by a majority of 25 to 9; whether it is true that no other candidate presented himself on this occasion; and whether, under these circumstances, the Local Government Board will withdraw their opposition to the election of Mr. Keogh?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The facts are substantially as stated in the first two paragraphs. Having regard to the previous character of Mr. Keogh, the Local Government Board deem him unfit for the position to which it was proposed to appoint him. They cannot assent to his election.

  THE INEBRIATES ACTS.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the limited operation of the Inebriates Acts; and whether he will consider the desirability of legislating, next Session, for their extension and amendment?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I will take an opportunity of considering the question.

  CYCLISTS IN CROWDED THOROUGH FARES.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether his attention has been called to a recent case before Mr. Plowden, at Hammersmith, on Friday, 1st August, in which the driver of a trap, having been summoned for driving into a cyclist named W. G. Hatton and wrecking his machine and injuring the rider, the Magistrate dismissed the summons on the plea that the horse shied at the machine; and added that so long as cyclists used such crowded thoroughfares as High Street, Kensington, there were sure to be accidents; whether it was proved in evidence that Hatton was riding close into the curb and on his proper side, and that the driver of the trap was guilty of negligence and furious driving; whether cyclists are entitled to the same protection in the construction of the Law requiring riders and drivers in the public thoroughfares to keep to their proper side, and use due care and diligence in avoiding other people as all other citizens; and whether, if a horse shies at and injures another person, his owner is liable in damages to such injured person?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,: The Magistrate informs me that after careful consideration of the whole evidence he came to the distinct conclusion that the occurrence was the result of pure accident. Hatton was on his right side, but one of four other bicycles in the street at the time turned suddenly in front of the horse, causing it to shy badly, and so cause the accident. The Magistrate was of opinion that the driver was not guilty of negligence or furious driving. Cyclists using the streets are entitled to the same protection as other persons. Whether the owner is liable for injuries
  520
  occasioned when a horse shies, depends upon the question whether there has been negligence in the driving or use of the horse.
  MR. CONYBEARE: With reference to the statement of the Magistrate that as long as cyclists used such crowded thoroughfares as High Street, Kensington, there were sure to be accidents, are we to understand by it that cyclists are not to use crowded thoroughfares?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: Certainly not, Sir. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that no such deduction ought to be drawn.

  THE MALTESE CLERGY.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he has been able to obtain a draft of the letter of Cardinal Rampolla to Monsignor Pace, relating to the ignorance of the Maltese clergy alleged by Sir Lintorn Simmons; and will it be laid before the House?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: This letter has not been communicated officially to Her Majesty's Government, and they have no authority to lay it before the House. It has, however, been published in Malta with the Bishop's Pastoral.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the pledge given by Cardinal Rampolla, and recorded in the papers, about the communication of documents? I apprehend that the letter has already been communicated to the Foreign Office.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: According to the information I have received it has not been communicated to the Foreign Office.

  NATIONAL GALLERY.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury by whose authority, and upon what information, a picture, representing the "Head of Christ," which was lately purchased at a sale at Messrs. Christie's Auction Rooms, by the Trustees of the National Gallery, is now exhibited in the Gallery as the work of "Giovanni Bellini?"
  MR. JACKSON: The picture in question is described as a work of Giovanni Bellini's by the authority of Sir Frederick Burton, Director of the National Gallery, and on his responsibility.

  TRAWLING ON THE SCOTCH AND IRISH COASTS.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the late statement of the Lord Advocate, that the prohibition of trawling in certain Scotch bays has been on the whole highly beneficial, and if he will now take steps to prohibit trawling in some of the Irish bays, such as Galway, where a great majority of the fishermen have been long opposed to trawling; and if it is not legally in the power of the Lord Lieutenant to adopt this course, and if the late Lord Lieutenant refused to adopt it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Inspectors of Irish Fisheries do not contemplate at present the prohibition of trawling generally in any of the bays in Ireland. They have inquired into all applications received by them up to the present time, and have made their decisions thereon—namely, that there was nothing to justify them in prohibiting this mode of fishing. It is in the power of the Lord Lieutenant in Council to prohibit trawling where the Inspectors refuse to do so. In the case of Galway Bay, an appeal was brought against such a decision of the Inspectors, but the latter was upheld on the appeal being heard by a Committee of the Privy Council. Since that time no further application on the subject has been received. At inquiries recently held in reference to the fisheries of Donegal Bay, the evidence showed the total absence of flat fish in market since the English trawlers left the bay. The Inspectors have made a bye-law prohibiting steam trawling off a small part of the coast of Antrim, Derry, and Donegal, under the powers given them by the late Act, but they have not received complaints against steam trawling from Galway.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I would ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will kindly consider during the recess the difference between the Irish and Scotch policy on the question of trawling, and whether he will have a Conference of the Irish and Scotch Commissioners, so as to try and find out the reason for the difference?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: One of the great differences between the Scotch and
  522
  the Irish case is that the trawling prohibited in Scotland is sea trawling, while the kind of trawling which prevails in Galway Bay does not exist in Scotland at all.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the English law, whereby, as I understand, along the coast of Northumberland representative Committees have the power to put down this trawling?

  ATTACK ON EXCURSIONISTS AT BELFAST.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what were the circumstances of the attack on a number of Catholics at Queen's Island, Belfast, on Wednesday morning last; whether any arrests have been made; what inquiries have been instituted, and with what result; and whether, in pursuance of the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Belfast riots, the Government will establish a police station at Queen's Island, as now requested by petition to the Lord Lieutenant?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that the excursion party numbered about 800. The starting point was opposite the Queen's Island, where over 5,000 workmen are employed. The band with the excursionists played in the hearing of the workmen what is regarded as a Party air, and commenced singing and cheering. Bolts or nuts were thrown by some of the workmen, but no injury was done to any person except a boy, who received a bruise from being struck on the forehead, but he received no serious injury. No injury was done to the vessel. Every effort has been made to identify the assailants by the local police, but so far without success. The manager of the works states that none of his foremen or responsible men knew what happened until all was over. The Petition referred to in the last paragraph has been received, and will have due consideration.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the riots of 1886, which led to the loss of 30 lives, broke out at this very place, and that the Commissioners recommended the placing of a police station there? May I

  523
  hope that there will be no further delay in carrying out this suggestion?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That will be further considered.

  ALLOTMENTS BILL.
  MR. COBB: Could the First Lord of the Treasury arrange that the Lords' Amendments to the Allotments Bill should be considered early one evening?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am afraid I could hardly undertake that. I think it will be for the convenience of Members that progress should be made in Supply.
  MR. COBB: I mean after Supply.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Oh, yes; certainly.

  THREATENED FAMINE IN IRELAND.
  MR. COX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether it is a fact, as stated in the Freeman's Journal to-day, that an agreement has been come to between the Treasury and the Great Western Railway of Ireland for the construction of a light railway, and whether, in view of the threatened potato famine, he will quickly introduce a Bill so that employment may be given to the people in the district?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Cork I have to ask a similar question in regard to the condition of affairs in the neighbourhood of Skibbereen, and as to the intention of the Government to construct a line to Baltimore. I hear on the authority of the parish priest that on Achill Island the potato crop is entirely blighted.
  MR. SEXTON: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not stated that in Mayo, unless there are speedy measures of relief, there will be a partial, if not a general, famine?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no doubt that disease does exist in great parts of the South and West of Ireland. Most unquestionably it would be desirable in view of possible eventualities that every effort should be made to push on the construction of the light railways in these districts. Certain difficulties, however, have arisen with regard to the Mayo and Galway line from the fact that the presentments at last Assize contained certain flaws which made it absolutely necessary for them to go to
  524
  the Grand Jury again; but in ordinary course the Grand Jury does not meet until next Spring. Any railway which has to wait until the Grand Jury gives assent, cannot be constructed in time to do any good in case there should be any serious failure of the potato crop. There is no way of meeting this great difficulty except by bringing in a Bill to call a special and exceptional sitting of the Grand Jury for the purpose of dealing with it. If I had any hope that such a Bill would pass without opposition, I would bring it in in the course of the present Sitting.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I suppose the right hon. Gentleman knows that in the Act of 1880 there was an anticipatory provision by which the Lord Lieutenant was enabled in special and urgent cases to call special meetings of the Presentment Sessions for the purpose of providing relief for distress. I suppose the Government will adopt a similar provision with regard to the summoning of the Grand Juries.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for bringing the question to my notice, and for the assurance that such a measure will be hailed by him as of great advantage to Ireland.
  COLONEL NOLAN: When will the Bill be brought in?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: To-morrow.

  BLASKET ISLAND.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any Report from the Local Government Inspector on Blasket Island? I have received a telegram stating that fever has broken out there, and that the unfortunate people are abandoned by the Local Government Board. Will the right hon. Gentleman despatch a gunboat to the island for the relief of the people?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will at once make inquiries on the subject.

  SHIPPING BOUNTIES IN AMERICA.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received from the British Ambassador or British Consul in America copies of the Shipping Bounty Bills (providing large sailing bounties and mail subsidies, and designed to revive

  525
  American shipbuilding) which have just been passed by the United States Senate; and, if so, whether he has any objection to lay the copies in question upon the Table of the House?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: We have not yet received copies.

  INDIAN PAPERS.
  SIR W. PLOWDEN: When are we to have a Memorandum from the Under Secretary for India with reference to the Indian Accounts.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It has gone to the printer's.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: There is a Statement which is required by Statute to be laid on the Table before the 14th of May, and it has not yet been presented. I refer to the Report on the moral and material progress of India?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I will consult with my right hon. Friend as to the Paper.

  MR. SWINBURNE.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has yet read the "Ode to Russia" in the current number of the Fortnightly Review, and whether the Government have any communication to make to the House respecting Mr. Swinburne's incitement to the assassination of the Czar?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  FOREIGN IMPORT DUTIES.
  Copy ordered—
  "Return of the rates of Import Duties levied in European Countries and the United States upon the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom."—(Sir Michael Hicks Beach.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 376.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to Amendments to Partnership Bill [Lords].

  VATICAN (MISSION OF THE DUKE OF NORFOLK).
  Address for "Return of all Papers relating to the Mission of the Duke of Norfolk to the Vatican."—(Mr. Summers.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will it be competent for us to insert after "Duke of Norfolk" the words "and Sir George Errington"?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government could not consent to that.
  Return agreed to.

  VATICAN (MISSION OF MONSIGNOR RUFFO-SCILLA).
  Address for—
  "Return of all Papers relating to the Mission of Monsignor Ruffo-Scilla from the Vatican to this country."—(Mr. Summers.)

  CEMETERIES (PROVINCIAL TOWNS).
  Address for Return showing—

  (1). The names and situation of the Cemeteries in Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Norwich, Salford, Sheffield, and York, to which the Act 16 and 17 Vic., c. 134; 17 and 18 Vic., c. 87, 18 and 19 Vic. c. 128; and 20 and 21 Vic., c. 81, apply;

  (2.) The number of bodies buried in each;

  (3.) The extent of each ground;

  (4.) How much has been appropriated for burial purposes;

  (5.) The date of the first interment in each;

  (6.) How much surface space is allowed for a grave;

  (7.) If burials still take place on what is known as the common interment system; and, is so, how many bodies are buried in each grave in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 288 of Session 1889."—(Mr. Byron Reed.)

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Abel Thomas, esquire, for Carmarthen County (Eastern Division).
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  CLASS II.
  1. 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 during 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."
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,: The discussion on Saturday on some questions which were addressed to me on general topics was prejudiced by the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Flintshire in respect to certain negotiations between the French and British Governments with regard to territories in Africa. I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I say a few words now in answer to the hon. Member. The Anglo-French Agreement is now probably in the hands of hon. Members. The hon. Member for Flintshire expressed a strong and natural apprehension lest anything should be done to prejudice religious freedom in Madagascar, and the good work which the missionaries connected with this country have been doing for so many years. I hope the hon. Member will see that the pledge which has been given has been abundantly fulfilled, and that full security is taken in the agreement for the complete protection of religious liberty and for all forms of worship and religious teaching in Madagascar. The hon. Member expresses a strong feeling against the Government handing over that country to a French Protectorate. I would remind the hon. Member that this country is not quite a free agent in the matter. The Hova Government some years ago transferred to France the conduct of their foreign relations. With the exception of the United States no objection has been made to the arrangement by any country, and the English Government would be placed in an isolated position were we now to raise an objection to that arrangement with the Hova Government. The hon. Member also complained of the treatment to which certain Protestant missionaries have been subjected. The securities taken in this Agreement will render any expulsion, such as that of the Rev. Mr. Jones, impossible in Madagascar, except by breach of international engagements. The hon. Member referred to the coolie labour traffic, and said that it would be carried on in Madagascar, and would be the Slave Trade in another form. But France was a party to the recent Act of Brussels, which contains engagements by the civilised Powers for the suppression
  528
  of slavery, and I do not think it would be worthy of this House to entertain a doubt of honourable fulfilment by the French Government of the engagement it has made. The Foreign Office has not, as has been said, bargained away a free people, but it has, in accordance with the engagement made, recognised the Protectorate of France, and France in return recognises our Protectorate over Zanzibar. No doubt we who have so much interest in Madagascar might like to exercise direct influence over it, but we cannot possibly undertake responsibility wherever it is possible for colonisation to take place; but what we ought to do, and what has been done, is to see that where our people have settled themselves for beneficial work those labours shall not be lost, and under the engagement now made between the French and British Governments I think full security is taken for that necessary object.
  MR. BUCHANAN: There are one or two other questions I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman beyond those which have been addresssed to him, and which he has replied to. I think we must all recognise his fairness in postponing the further consideration of this Vote on Saturday, in order that we might have the Papers relating to Madagascar in our hands. As to the first declaration signed by Lord Salisbury on the part of England it appears clear from that that the Anglo-French Agreement was the direct consequence of the Anglo-German Agreement. The facts are sufficiently stated on the face of the declaration. After we had agreed with Germany to assume a Protectorate over Zanzibar the French demanded some compensation for releasing us from the Anglo-French Agreement of 1862, with respect to the independence of Zanzibar, and all this arrangement which has subsequently taken place as to Madagascar and South West Africa is the direct outcome of the Anglo-German Agreement. I think that the fact that the Anglo-German Agreement was concluded in that way without previously obtaining the consent of the French Government or applying for it is not creditable to our diplomacy. And the way our Protectorate is described by Lord Salisbury in the Anglo-French Agreement is

  529
  different from the way it was described in the Anglo-German Agreement. In the Anglo-French Agreement it is described as a British Protectorate over the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba; but according to the Anglo-German Agreement it is a Protectorate over the dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar, including the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba. We have often pressed the Under Secretary of State to tell us what is included in our Protectorate over Zanzibar. Judging from Lord Salisbury's Despatch, it is maintained that it only includes the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba, but I understand the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary to maintain that it included the Sultan's dominions on the mainland—all his territory, in fact, which is outside the sphere of German influence. So that the first consequence of the conclusion of this Agreement is considerably to whittle down the extent of the Protectorate which, it has been commonly imagined, we have assumed under the Anglo-German Agreement. Then, I desire to know what will be the position, legal and commercial, of French subjects in relation to Zanzibar itself, particularly whether the Convention of 1884 between France and Zanzibar remains in force, because we are left completely in the dark on that question; and I also would ask what will be the commercial position of the strip of territory opposite Zanzibar which is ceded to the Germans, and particularly whether the Germans will be able to impose duties on imports, and particularly differential duties? Then I turn to the other side of the Agreement, namely, to the clauses relating to the French Protectorate over Madagascar. The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State has replied to the hon. Member for Flintshire as to the protection of the British missionaries, but the right hon. Gentleman has not dealt adequately with the main objection of my hon. Friend. We are doing all that in us lies to hand over a flourishing native power that my hon. Friend compared to Japan, and a Christian power constantly advancing in civilisation, to the domination of a European Power. I do not think that is an act which it is easy to justify, and I think the right hon. Gentleman acted very prudently in not attempting a justification of it. The
  530
  subject of the commercial future of British subjects in Madagascar, I understand, is not dealt with in the Agreement. The Commercial Treaty between, this country and Madagascar, which governs our relations with that island, is the Treaty of 1865, in which Madagascar binds itself not to raise its tariff beyond a maximum of 10 per cent., and I should like to get some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that this arrangement will not be affected by the Agreement with France as to Madagascar. If our Treaty is to be abrogated by the Agreement, I should like to know whether there is any limit imposed on France in the way of imposing duties in Madagascar—whether she will be able to impose protective and differential duties on imports and exports. I think we ought in this matter to consider the value of British trade in Madagascar and the amount of British capital that has been sunk in it. I think we ought to have a direct assurance on the subject. As to the other part of the Agreement—and here, I think, we must have some information—it is evident that Lord Salisbury has been free and lavish in cessions of territory to the French where, as far as my own knowledge goes, no French trade at present exists, and practically outside all access to French trade; and he has failed to protect territories where British trade is established in the neighbourhood of the Niger. Having settlements in Senegal and full control over the trade in that part of Africa, no doubt we must acknowledge the fact that the territory between that region and the upper Niger is under the influence of France, but the trade that comes out of the mouths of the Niger is in British hands, and it is evident that a clear line of demarcation could have been drawn between the spheres of influence of France and England. Hitherto we have had no statement as to the commercial relations of the Powers existing in these spheres of influence. They are outside the Congo basin, so that none of the provisions of the Berlin Act apply. I should like to know whether there is any limit put on the French Government as to their power of imposing protective tariffs in this region. I understand that the trade with the country between Algeria and Tunis and the Niger—a trade principally consisting of Manchester goods,

  531
  and entering at Tripoli and elsewhere—is, generally speaking, in British hands, the tariff being a maximum one of 8 per cent. ad valorem. The French tariff in Algeria is very much higher than that, and we should like to be sure, before the matter is settled, whether France is to have the power of including all this enormous tract of North West Africa within the tariff zone of Algeria. If she has that power it will operate very seriously to the detriment of British trade. I would only say, in conclusion, that I think everyone must have observed with disappointment that while we have by these negotiations with France come to an agreement and made concessions to her which are of very considerable value indeed, we have left a matter of great importance and difficulty as to which we are in dispute with France altogether unsettled—I mean the Newfoundland question. I do not wish to press the right hon. Gentleman in this matter, because, no doubt, it is one of the most difficult questions engaging the attention of the Foreign Office at this moment, but, looking broadly at the results of the Foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government, we must view with regret the fact that we have not yet come to an agreement with France on the matter.
  MR. A. M'ARTHUR: No doubt it is our duty to maintain friendly relations with France and Germany, and other countries, so far as we can possibly do so, but it will, at the same time, be admitted that it is our duty to guard our rights and privileges, and not to be unmindful of the coloured races who have been our allies, and who desire to be under our protection. I believe that in our laudable desire to maintain friendly relations with other countries we have abandoned more than we ought. Germany we have allowed to take possession of territories in Africa to which that Power had no right or valid claim. We have, in fact, carried a pacific policy too far, and our conciliatory conduct towards Germany has reached an extreme limit. It is hard to say whether Liberals or Conservatives are most to blame for the lamentable mistakes that have been made. So far back as 1884, we allowed Germany to take possession of the Port of Angra Pe Quena, to which we had the best right. We declined
  532
  to do so ourselves, whereupon Germany put in a claim, and negotiations were opened up between her Government and our own. These negotiations were suddenly broken off by Prince Bismarck, and Germany then stepped in and took forcible possession of the territory. Before that—as soon as it was known that Germany had made a claim, a large and influential deputation waited, upon Lord Derby, who was then at the Foreign Office, and represented to him the advantages that would flow to British trade if this territory, which included a valuable part, were taken posession of by us. Lord Derby, I remember, said at the time, that there was no cause for alarm, as Germany was not a colonising power, and that if any attempt were made by Germany to take possession of that coast, it would be regarded as an unfriendly act. But Germany did take possession of it, and though we secured some concessions, we heard no more about the "unfriendly act," and Germany retains possession of the territory to the present day. Then, after allowing Germany to become possessed of several immense tracts of territory in Africa, we allowed her to become the preponderating influence in Zanzibar. That influence used to be ours, and to get it back again we have made large concessions to Germany. I am far from wishing to argue that Great Britain should monopolise the whole of Africa. We have a large portion, and there can be no harm in Germany and other countries getting a share, but I hold it to be our duty to maintain all our existing rights and privileges. I would allude also to the conduct of Germany with regard to Samoa. In regard to these islands, there was a Treaty between England, Germany, and the United States of America, to the effect that none of the three should exert any decided influence over the islands unless with the consent of the others. Then, again, Germany stepped in and attempted to ride rough-shod over everyone. She attempted to take possession of the islands, deposed the King, and kept him a prisoner for a considerable time. It is true that Prince Bismarck subsequently saw the mistake he had committed, expressed regret for what he had done, and went the length of reproving and recalling some of the German

  533
  officials, but no steps were taken by Her Majesty's Government to oppose the Germans in that part of the world. Some communications may have passed, but there are no Papers to show it, and had it not been for the United States I believe that Samoa would have been a part of the German Empire to-day. A satisfactory settlement, however, has been brought about there, and the King has been restored. I mention these things to show that we have gone to an extreme in our conciliatory attitude towards Germany. The conduct of France in relation to the New Hebrides was very like that of Germany in regard to Samoa, and, probably, if it had not been for the resolute attitude of our Australian colonists we should have found France in possession of those islands by this time. Then, as to Madagascar, although it had been an understanding that neither France nor England should usurp any power in that country except by mutual agreement, France stepped in, and, on some trumpery pretext, bombarded the ports and invaded the island. The French, however, were kept at bay by the natives and at length forced to retire. Now by the present Agreement we are about to hand over Madagascar to France. The Committee should not forget that our trade with Madagascar is five times as great as that of any other Power, and that a very large amount of British capital has been sunk in the country. It is vitally important to our fellow-subjects in Madagascar that their rights should be maintained. I am glad to hear that civil and religious liberty is guaranteed to the inhabitants, but I cannot help feeling some scepticism as to whether that guarantee will always be observed. Both morally and commercially, I fear mischievous results, and such results have already followed French interference. I once spent a week in Tahiti, and it was sad to hear of the altered conditions of that island, both commercially and morally. The influence missionaries had exercised so beneficially upon the habits of the people was, I learned when I was there, restricted in every possible way; they were required to adhere to one chapel or church, and were not allowed to move about the island, and interference with schools was of the most arbitrary character. The Queen
  534
  herself was practically a prisoner, and when she came to visit the steamer upon which I was travelling could only do so by permission from the French Authorities. The conduct of the French towards the missionaries was made the subject of comment in this House. In whatever aspect we view it, this proposal is a most unfortunate one. Commercially, Madagascar is of immense importance to us, and it is for the interest of British trade that the country should remain independent, and not become the possession of any European Power. Our trade with the island is progressing, and is now five times that of any other European Power. My hon. Friend has referred to this, and I need not repeat what he has said. I hope we shall have satisfactory answers to the questions he has raised. My hon. Friend has referred to the coolie traffic between Madagascar and Réunion as really little better than a Slave Trade, and we should like to know whether any arrangement has been made as to that. At one time alcoholic drink of the most villainous description was largely consumed on the island, and I should like to know whether any reference has been made to that, or whether, under French domination, the people are to be improved off the face of the earth by this pernicious means. I am very glad to find provision is made for securing civil and religious liberty, and I hope this stipulation may be maintained, though I have a strong opinion on this point myself. I regret exceedingly such a proposal as this for handing over Madagascar to the control of France or any other European Power. I think it is a disgraceful thing that we should be made to hold official communication with the Hova Government only through the French Authorities. I believe the whole proposal is an act of folly, that it will be exceedingly injurious to our trade as well as to the best interests of the Malagasy people, and will be most unpopular.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: I take very great interest in Madagascar, and the missionary work there, and I regret that the Hova Government some years ago gave up the whole management of their foreign relations to France. Though the people did successfully resist

  535
  the French invasion, yet, for some inscrutable reason, in the Treaty that followed, control of foreign relations was handed over to France. It is true that we never recognised that Agreement, but, for considerations that appear to me to be sufficient, we propose to do so now. I came down on Saturday prepared to support the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) in pressing upon the Government the necessity of providing for civil and religious liberty in the island. But with this information given us I must say that, in my opinion, religious liberty is sufficiently provided for under the terms of the Anglo-French Convention, and I am glad to see that this country will have as much power for the protection of religious liberty in the island as we ever had. This matter has been discussed as if we were handing over the country to France in the same way as we are told large tracts of Africa have been handed over to Germany. But I do not understand the Anglo-French and the Anglo-German Agreement as being anything of the kind. All we do is to draw certain lines of limitatation, set up certain land marks, beyond which the influence of the respective countries shall not be exercised, so that our interests may not come into conflict. Surely, it is wiser to come to a peaceable arrangement of this kind than to proceed to a solution of difficulties by fighting, as was the custom in the last century. There is a distinct guarantee given under the Convention that missionaries of all denominations shall receive complete protection, and in truth Protestant missionaries will now stand in a more secure position than they have hitherto occupied. Suppose the stipulation is infringed we have still the same power to make diplomatic representations, or to go to war as we had before, but while before when we went with representations to the Hova Government we might have been met with counter representations from the French Government, jealous of our influence, now we have solemn engagements entered into by the French Government for the protection of civil and religious liberty. Therefore, from the point of view of hon. Members opposite, which is my point of view also—I mean the protection of civil and religious liberty—our position is even
  536
  stronger than it was before, and when I reflect on the result which has so happily attended our acquisition of a similar suzerainty over Zanzibar, the proclamation by the Sultan last week, which will do so much to put an end to the Slave Trade, then I thank God for these Conventions.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: It is to be regretted that whilst we were negotiating with France with regard to Zanzibar and Madagascar we did not, at the same time, bring our fisheries dispute with her to a satisfactory termination. Fishery questions are likely to give rise to great international difficulties, and if possible they should be settled immediately upon mutually satisfactory terms. I desire to congratulate Her Majesty's Government upon the success that appears to have been attained by the Anti-Slavery Conference recently held at Brussels, and for that success we have largely to thank the King of the Belgians. It is satisfactory at the same time to think that the British Government has taken the initiative in carrying out the decisions of the Conference. The Conference has suggested that one of the most effective modes of striking at the root of the Slave Trade is to open up the interior of Africa by means of railroads, steamboats, and carriage roads, and also—and this I think must have come from the German representative—that by expeditions of flying columns slave hunting can be best detected and prevented. With regard to opening up the country, I think we all agree nothing will have greater effect, and therefore I am heartily glad that delimitations of spheres of influence have been arrived at, and international jealousies removed. But there are other methods to pursue, for this opening up must needs take a long time, and we have made little progress so far, though we now hope to proceed more rapidly. Last year, in submitting a Motion with reference to the Slavery Conference, I made three proposals as to the methods to be employed in the naval mode of suppressing slavery—first, that punishment should follow the capture of slave traders; second, that there ought to be a more careful supervision of the way in which flags are used to cover slavery acts; and, third, that the nations should agree among themselves on the full right of

  537
  search, so that slave traders should not be allowed to escape by flying national flags. I am glad to think that on all the points the Conference has come to a very satisfactory conclusion, and one which will do much to prevent the Slave Trade across the sea. The nations signing the Agreement have undertaken, within a, year of the passing of the Act, to introduce legislation in their respective countries to mete out punishment to slave dealers captured and convicted, and this punishment is not to be confined to carrying slaves found on board the ships, but is to apply to cases of raiding and of mutilation of wretched boys. It is satisfactory to find that careful supervision is going to be undertaken with regard to flying flags of different nations, and no vessel will be allowed to fly the flag of any of the Great Powers without registration and a proper licence. We may thank the Government of France for having conceded what, for some time, appeared to a certain extent to be against their will—the right of search to all other nations. Under this Act any vessel can be captured if suspected of being a slaver, and taken into the nearest port, there to be judged by the proper tribunal, and those concerned brought to punishment if convicted of being engaged in the Slave Trade; and it is a great thing that the French have seen their way to allow this concession, which will do a great deal to reduce the naval Slave Trade. There are other matters in which the Act will confer great advantages. An international office is to be instituted at Zanzibar, at which all complaints are to be lodged, and this will do much towards giving proper information regarding slave owners. There are stringent conditions attached to the importation of firearms into Africa, and I shall rejoice if these restrictions can be properly carried out. But still more important than all these restrictions is the decision of Persia, Turkey, and Zanzibar to carry out very stringent regulations against the extension of domestic slavery. If that portion of the Act is enforced it may strike at the root of the Slave Trade and be the real cure of the whole evil. We may congratulate those who have been instrumental in inducing the Sultan of Zanzibar to issue an edict against domestic slavery in his own territory, and the only doubt I feel
  538
  in regard to this matter is whether the influence of the European Powers is sufficient in regard to these semi-civilised nations to induce them to carry out these proposals of the Act. I believe, however, that the influence which will be brought by the other nations, acting in concert, will do a great deal, with these pacific schemes, to reduce this immense evil from which the world has so long been suffering.
  SIR R. N. FOWLER: The speech of the hon. Member is worthy of his family traditions, and I wish to express my cordial concurrence in the spirit of his remarks. I desire to say a word in addition to what has been said as to the position of our missionaries in Madagascar. We know that their influence in the island has been remarkable, and that it has been exercised with the best results for the advancement of the people. I am glad to find that they are to be secured freedom in their labours, but I am convinced that the question of the protection of the missionaries is one of the most important which can engage the Foreign Office now and for a long course of years to come.
  MR. ROWNTREE: We must all rejoice at the disposition shown among nations to settle their differences by means of peaceable agreement, instead of by appeal to force of arms. But, at the same time, I do not think we can be altogether satisfied with an Agreement which hands over the interests of a nation rapidly rising in the scale of civilisation to the control of a Foreign Power without consideration of the wishes of those physically concerned. I should like to ask the Under Secretary why there is a difference in the words employed in the recognition of the British Protectorate of Zanzibar and the recognition of the French Protectorate of Madagascar. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could assure the Committee that the words "with its consequences" do not sanction any interference by the French in the internal affairs of the Madagascar people. It will be observed that the article runs thus—
  "The Government of Her Britannic Majesty recognises the Protectorate of France over the island of Madagascar, 'with its consequences,' especially as regards the exequaturs of British

  539
  Consuls and agents, which must be applied for through the intermediary of the French Resident General."
  But remember this was exactly the point of difference between the French and the Hova Government five years ago, and, as I understand, the Hova Government have never consented to that provision. If that is so, it is clear we are not simply settling a difference as between ourselves and the French Government, but are gravely interfering with the right of a people in matters concerning their own self-government, and their relationship with other Governments. My point is that we ought not to interfere with the freedom of their natural advance in the scale of civilisation and Christianity. We ought not to prevent them from approaching the Government whose people have hitherto had the greatest influence over the inhabitants of the islands. We ought not to require them merely to approach us through other channels, and, finally, I say that if this arrangement has been made without the consent of the people of Madagascar we should object to it very strongly.
  MR. WEBB: This question of Madagascar has come upon us with some suddenness and has caused considerable surprise. I think it is of much more importance than the Government appear to realise. I am afraid that the Government have acted in ignorance of the strong feeling of the people of this country in the matter, and I feel confident that when the Agreement is published in the papers to-morrow morning, there will be much annoyance expressed on the subject. When we are discussing the affairs of subject races, we ought to remember that we possess a great influence for good or for bad, and that, consequently, a very high duty devolves upon us. This is not merely a question of right between France and England. I do not propose to attempt to discuss now the question of the rights or wrongs of France. My own personal opinion is that if there is to be a Protectorate over Madagascar, one by the United Kingdom would be far preferable to one by the French Republic. Nor is this a question of British influence, because under the present arrangement there is a fair opportunity for the different religious bodies properly and
  540
  legitimately to advance their opinions, and I trust that those opportunities will continue to exist under the new arrangement. But I contend we have no right to make an Agreement over the heads of the people of the island. To what extent, if at all, have the people of Madagascar been consulted in this matter, and if they have not been consulted what right have we, for supposed advantages to be obtained in other parts of Africa, to give the control of these people over to another Power—to another European nation? No matter how we may disguise it the very fact of there being a French Protectorate will end eventually in France gaining more and more influence in the island. Madagascar differs from most other lands inhabited by coloured races in that it has, as the result of the influence of the missionaries, been steadily rising in the scale of Christianity, and I should think it is a misfortune that when a nation has reached that state of progress we should take away from it its independence. It has been too much the case that the rights and feelings of these people have not been considered. In Madagascar we have a fairly ordered State, and yet we are treating it as entirely unworthy of self-Government. Our conduct is likely to cause a feeling of intense disappointment and hopelessness, regarding the possibilities of other nations in a like degree of development, and I believe the Government will before long discover that they have made a great mistake, and that they have excited much opposition and a feeling of intense exasperation by the action which they have taken.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Without unduly detaining the Committee I will reply to the points raised by the various speakers. In regard to the Behring Sea, I have this evening laid upon the Table the Papers relating to this matter. The reason why these Papers have not been laid upon the Table before is because it was desirable that they should include the reply of Lord Salisbury to the Despatch from Mr. Blaine that has appeared in the American newspapers, and which reply stated the English case. We were, of course, unable to publish that until it had reached the American Government. With regard to Newfoundland, it would have been very satisfactory if Her Majesty's Government

  541
  had been able to inform Parliament that there had been some settlement arrived at with regard to the pending questions in relation to the fishing rights in the colony. At this moment the Premier of Newfoundland is in London, and consultations are going on between the Government and him, which, I hope, will result in some solution of the question. No doubt the matter is most perplexing, but no effort ought to be, or will be, spared to bring the dispute to a satisfactory termination. Owing to the extreme conciliation and prudence of the officers employed on the Newfoundland coast, all collisions, great and small, have hitherto been avoided. I hope that our fellow-subjects in Newfoundland will be actuated by the same spirit, for they may be assured that Her Majesty's Government have their interests at heart, and are quite as anxious to maintain their just rights as they themselves can be, and will do nothing that will militate against their prosperity. The hon. Member opposite has referred, in rather a carping spirit of criticism, to our relations with Germany in connection with Samoa, but I do not think that those relations reflect anything but credit upon Her Majesty's Government, who may point with satisfaction to the solution of questions which at one time threatened to give rise to international difficulty. That matters have been so satisfactorily arranged is largely due to the very conciliatory spirit that has been manifested by the German Government. A charge of undue reticence has been made against the Foreign Office in reference to those subjects. But I do not believe that matters that have lately been engaging the attention of Her Majesty's Government could have been settled satisfactorily if their exact position had been made known to the world day by day. Now, however, that the facts have been communicated to Parliament, the Foreign Office cannot be fairly accused of undue reticence. Bargains in private life cannot be entered into in the street, and diplomacy is only bargaining between nations, and great interests require to be safeguarded by reticence on the part of those engaged in the arrangements sought to be entered into. The hon. Member opposite has asked some questions as to the position in which trade on the mainland of Africa
  542
  is placed by the new Anglo-German Treaty, which has hitherto been regulated by the Treaty with Zanzibar. I may point out that under Article VII. of our Commercial Treaty with Zanzibar all articles of merchandise coming from foreign countries are subject to a duty of 5 per cent., but goods in transitu are exempted from that impost. By the terms of the Anglo-German Agreement the Germans on the mainland are prohibited from imposing any differential duties upon British goods. The question has been asked whether, if the Congo Act does not come into force, the Germans will be able to levy any duties they like. That is not so. They are not entitled to do so by the lapse of the Brussels Act; under the agreement with Zanzibar, to which they are successors, only 5 per cent. can be charged, and I understand that Germany elects to be bound by the Zanzibar Commercial Treaty. With regard to the protest of the Cape as to their not being consulted with respect to the territories which concerns them, I dealt fully with the question in the Debate which took place recently out the Anglo German Treaty, and I think it is a pity that it should be again raised. We are, no doubt, sorry that so much territory has been allowed to slip from us, that might, I believe, have been brought under the influence of our great colonies, but it is useless and unprofitable to go back to the history of that lapse. For two years there was an endeavour on the part of the German Government to induce as to protect their subjects in that region, but neither the Colonial nor the Imperial Government were willing to undertake the responsibility. In 1884 the Imperial Government warned the Colonial Government that the Germans would undertake the protection of the country if they did not do so themselves, and when after three months they undertook to do so, it was too late. However, we can only deal with the accomplished facts, and can only take blame to ourselves for not having been as wise in our generation as the Germans have been. With regard to the question of freedom of transit, no doubt that has been provided by the Act of Berlin in the Congo zone, but our arrangement has strengthened that provision. Hon. Members talk as if it were impossible to get freedom of

  543
  transit for our goods through a country without assuming a Protectorate over it. That is a doctrine which cannot be maintained. If there is blame with regard to Africa, we must all share it; but I maintain that in the course of the tenure of office by Her Majesty's present Government, we have confirmed and enlarged the spheres of British influence in Africa. On the Niger the Royal Niger Company has been able to extend its influence over 2,000 miles of waterway, and I have been informed that a person can travel with safety over that length of the Niger and its affluents, and this has been secured at small expenditure and by gentle methods only. We have asserted and maintained the right of free transit over that great river, the Zambesi, into the interior of Africa. In Zanzibar we have secured predominant influence, and I venture to say that we can point with confidence to the results of the policy of Her Majesty's Government. Notice has been taken that our Protectorate under this Agreement does not refer to regions formally leased to British companies for trading purposes, but I apprehend we have secured the British tenure and Protectorate over these regions by other measures. Therefore, I say we may with the greatest confidence anticipate the national approval for the policy of the Government. The naval operations, which have extended over so much time, and which have entailed so much sacrifice on the part of officers and men, have not passed by without a considerable achievement in the cause for which they were sent there. We may, I think, point to the Proclamation of the Sultan of Zanzibar with regard to slavery, which was spontaneous on the part of His Highness. In this respect I ought to express the acknowledgments on the part of the Government to the hon. Member for Poplar for his recognition of the labours of Her Majesty's Government. I think that all may rejoice with us in what I consider to be the greatest step taken in the last half-century towards the extinction of that accursed traffic. By the Act of Brussels a blow has been struck at the Slave Trade by the united action of all the civilised Powers, which I hope will check the trade in its development and in its sources. These are some instances of the policy which has been pursued by
  544
  Her Majesty's Government in Africa. Let it not be said that we have pursued this policy with a disregard for the rights of the natives of that country. We have secured no privileges except by the free rights of the inhabitants of those countries, and by Treaties freely made; and our East African Trading Companies have fortunately been able to secure the advantages they possess without once coming into collision with the natives. The hon. Member for Leicester and the hon. Member for West Waterford have referred to the action of the Government with regard to Madagascar. We have been asked if the natives of the island were consulted before the Agreement was entered into. My reply is that the Government have only recognised now what has been done by the Government of Madagascar itself; in the Treaty of 1886 between France and Madagascar it was provided that the French Representative should represent Madagascar in all foreign affairs, and all that Her Majesty's Government has done is to recognise this Act of the Hova Government itself. The Commercial Treaty will be in force as heretofore, and it is only in the relation of France to the foreign affairs of Madagascar that any change has been made. The hon. Member for Edinburgh has asked about the boundaries of the delimitation of territory between the Niger Company and France. It is impossible to say or to mark on the map the exact boundaries, but it has been secured that France will not claim any territory or Protectorate within the limit of the Treaties made by the Company, or in Sokoto. With regard to trade, of course, we cannot make an agreement with France as to the limits of the duty to be charged, because it is well know that France will not make any agreement of that nature. With respect to the non-inclusion of Newfoundland, the Agreement could not include all outstanding questions; but in what we have now done we have made another step towards a common agreement, and towards removing causes of offence. We have increased our sphere, and obviated causes of jealousy and possible causes of war, and, therefore, we have done good work, and have done something material in the way of guarding and preserving the peace of the world.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I entirely agree with Lord Salisbury that European nations have not the slightest right or title to give to one another continents which do not belong to them, but still I congratulate the Government on having come to an arrangement with France. It is satisfactory that our great neighbour should be contented and, subject to the reservation with which I opened my remarks, I may say I think the Agreement come to is one which is honourable to both sides. I trust it will have very large beneficial results. I have on the Paper a Motion to reduce the salary of Her Majesty's Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, but it is not intended to in any way impute blame to him for the general management of foreign affairs. I rather admire his spirit, and I am going to propose the reduction rather on a question of domestic policy, because of the influence he has given to the head of the Roman Catholic Church in Her Majesty's dominions. There are only two subjects upon which I desire to make observation before I come to that point, and one of these is the subject of arbitration. There has been a great movement among the nations lately in favour of arbitration for the settlement of international difficulties, and I hope it will increase. I rejoice at the success of the movement since the occasion when the deputation, of which I was a member, induced the Senate and the House of Representatives in the United States to pass resolutions in favour of this principle. I am quite aware there are some political matters difficult so to refer, but most international disputes are capable of being fairly settled by arbitration. I have some regret that the Secretary and Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in their utterances, seem loth to commit themselves to the principle of arbitration with our near neighbours to the same extent as the principle was accepted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States. Though the Government have been very reserved in accepting the general principle of arbitration, I admit that the Foreign Secretary has been ready enough to apply it in particular cases. What I am afraid of is, that we are too much under the domination of our colonies, who insist upon too much, and,
  546
  believing that they have the British Government at their back, often make somewhat unreasonable demands. I know the Newfoundland Fisheries is a delicate question and still under negotiation, but so far the French Government have exhibited a not unreasonable spirit when they say "first let us understand what our rights are, and then we will treat with you in respect to those rights." Now, I think the Newfoundland question is especially one for arbitration, because, as far as I understand the dispute, it is whether the right to catch fish gives the French the right to catch lobsters. I wish to know, therefore, whether this question is to be referred to arbitration? I gather that the objection to such a proceeding comes from Newfoundland, the colonists apparently dreading the result of arbitration on the point. But I must say that upon such a question the Imperial Government should come to a decision in accordance with Imperial interests, because, although we fully recognise the spirit of prudence and forbearance exhibited by officers on either side, there is obviously serious danger in keeping this dispute open, because of an unreasonable attitude on the part of the colonists. Some doubts, I believe, have arisen as to our statutory authority to enforce supposed Treaty rights on the point; but, as I have said, such matters of interpretation as this, whether fishing includes lobster catching, are eminently fit for decision by arbitration. These points being settled, then comes the question of treating for revision of rights and arrangements such as those for which the recent Conventions supply precedents. But here, again, we have the difficulty that wherever a colony sets up a claim it seems to be a bar to reasonable arrangements. I ventured on a previous occasion to suggest a concession to France in the New Hebrides, but then I was met with the objection, "What would the Australians say?" Well, from the nearest point of Australia the New Hebrides are a thousand miles distant. On this point I know feeling in Australia is strong and difficult to get over; but still, I do feel there is evinced on the part of hon. Members too great a disposition to yield to colonial objections. It is very gratifying to know that the Government have been so successful in their negotiations with France up to the

  547
  present time. I hope they will be equally successful with the questions that remain to be dealt with, and I think that in these negotiations we might well hand over Gambia and Sierra Leone to France for some consideration in another part of the world. ["No!"] I know the "Rule Britannia" spirit that resents the cession of any territory, however useless to us, where the British flag flies, and we know the first utterances in reference to the cession of Heligoland. My impression is that it would be to our advantage to exchange Sierra Leone, a colony surrounded by French possessions, and which can only be carried on under embarrassing conditions, and by a process of pushing farther and farther into the interior in a way that will lead to dangerous complications. Certainly, I think, we might make an advantageous "swop" of Sierra Leone, and let France have a happy hunting ground in the great territory between the Mediterranean and the Niger Company territory. I was reading the other day a letter from an English traveller recently returned from the West Coast of Africa, and who, I suppose, would be an impartial witness, and he describes the marked difference in passing from St. Louis and the French settlements, from the clean, well ordered, and outwardly prosperous appearance there, to the dirt, degradation, and drinking habits of the people of Sierra Leone. With regard to the Slave Trade and the Anti-Slavery Conference at Brussels, I think it is a desirable arrangement that opportunity should be given to search slave vessels, and I am inclined to agree with the Conference that the only really effective way to put down the traffic is for the Powers to take possession and control of Africa. I know the Under Secretary disclaims any such interpretation of these Agreements; but really they amount to encouragement to European Powers to take possession of Africa. There is, no doubt, much to be said in favour of the restrictions on the importation of firearms, and I can understand that European Governments desire to prevent the impediment to their operations there might be in the natives having possession of firearms. True, natives would use these arms in their inter-tribal wars; but I am not sure whether the shooting each other would not be better
  548
  than selling each other as slaves. It is a restriction upon which I do not wish to say much; but I do wish to say a word of deep regret at the absence from the convention of the Conference of any restriction upon the importation of spirits. This trade in spirits, out of which European traders derive large profits, is almost as great a curse to Africa as the Slave Trade. The duties imposed are merely nominal—not much over a penny a bottle—and I cannot but think there is a great deal of hypocrisy mixed up with our professions of interest in trade and benefit to Africa. I know that most of the pernicious stuff with which the natives of Africa are degraded and destroyed is made in Germany and Holland, but for the great part it is carried in British vessels. Certainly, I cannot congratulate Her Majesty's Government on an arrangement that leaves this evil untouched. I shall leave other Members to deal with the question, in reference to which I shall move a reduction of the Vote. I hold a strong opinion as to the undesirability of holding diplomatic relations with the Papal Authority from which we have long since severed ourselves, but I will leave to the others the arguments in support of my Motion, which is with reference to the Mission of Sir Lintorn Simmons to the Pope, to reduce the Foreign Secretary's salary by the sum of £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Salaries, be reduced by £100, part of the Salary of the Secretary of State."—(Sir George Campbell.)
  MR. CHANNING: I regret my hon. Friend has taken that course, because not with any very lengthened remarks I desired to move a reduction having reference to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as regards Madagascar.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I am quite ready to withdraw the Motion.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Is it your pleasure the Motion be withdrawn? [Cries of "No!"]
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to make a few observations in reference to the reduction just moved. The Motion for reduction has reference to the Mission of Sir Lintorn Simmons to the Vatican. Now, this Mission raises a variety of points of interest and

  549
  importance, having a bearing on the relations that subsist and the relations that ought to subsist between Her Majesty's Government and the Holy See. I do not propose to go into these very large questions beyond making this single observation: that if communications are to pass between Her Majesty's Government and the Vatican, I think we shall all agree that these communications ought to be of an open and public rather than of a secret and confidential character. There is, perhaps, very little of merit in this Mission of Sir Lintorn Simmons to the Vatican, but it has at least the merit of publicity. Now, I propose to deal with this Mission on its merits, and I ask, in the first place, why was it ever despatched? We have the view of Lord Salisbury on the subject given to us in a letter to Sir Lintorn Simmons, under date August 1, 1889—
  "The engagements under which Her Majesty's Government have come for the maintenance of the Roman Catholic religion in that island"—Malta—"and for the enforcement of the Canon Law make it a matter of serious importance that a full understanding should be established between the secular authorities and the heads of the Church to which the inhabitants of the island are attached."
  Here we have a distinct statement that, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, the British Government have come under engagements for the enforcement of the Canon Law in the island of Malta. Now, I understand we hold Malta under a definitive Treaty between Great Britain and France, signed at Paris May 30, 1814. The 7th article of that Treaty stipulates that—
  "Malta and its dependencies shall belong in full right and sovereignty to His Britannic Majesty."
  Her Majesty exercises, then, full rights of sovereignty over the island of Malta. This fact alone seems to me to conflict with the contention that the Canon Law as such is at the present day the law of Malta. Two Proclamations were issued before Malta came under subjection to Great Britain, and copies of these have been laid upon the Table, and I suppose hon. Members are well acquainted with their contents; but in order that there may be no mistake about the point, I will read from each of these Proclamations the
  550
  only sentence they contain which seems to bear on the question, whether the Canon Law is or is not the law of Malta. The first Proclamation was issued by Mr. Cameron, Civil Commissioner, on July 15, 1801, and the only sentence which seems to bear on this question is this—
  "His Majesty grants you full protection and the enjoyment of all your dearest rights. He will protect your Churches, your holy religion, and your property."
  The second Proclamation is dated October 5, 1813, and is signed by Sir Thomas Maitland, the Governor, and in it these words occur—
  "It will be His Excellency's duty to secure to the Maltese, in the fullest manner, the free exercise of their religion, to maintain their ecclesiastical establishment, to introduce such amelioration in the proceedings of the Courts of Law as will secure to everyone the certainty of speedy and effective justice, to make such improvement in the laws themselves as past experience or change of circumstances may have rendered advisable; and, in short, to adopt every measure that may be requisite to secure to the inhabitants a full share of that happiness wealth, security, and prosperity which are fortunately enjoyed by all the subjects of the British Empire in every part of the world."
  Well, in neither of these Proclamations is there a single word of reference to the Canon Law. But perhaps it will be contended that the whole of the Canon Law is not the law of Malta, and, indeed, it would be ridiculous to say it is, for, under the Canon Law, His Holiness claims that mere kingly authority is subject to the Papal power. The mere existence, therefore, of this Canon Law is incompatible with the sovereignty of the British Crown, and Lord Salisbury cannot be exempted from blame in using the vaguest phraseology possible in reference to our assumed obligations to maintain the Canon Law in the island. At this point I think it would be useful if I stated exactly what it is that His Holiness the Pope has laid down upon the subject. He has made two declarations. The first of them is the only one with which I need deal at any length. His Holiness has declared that marriages celebrated in Malta by all those who profess the Catholic religion, whether both contracting parties be Catholics, or whether one of them be a Catholic and the other a non-Catholic, are not, and shall not be, vaild, if they are not celebrated according to the form established by the Council of Trent. Now, it is, I believe,

  551
  admitted on all hands that the decrees of the Council of Trent are not a part of the Canon Law, unless they are made so by some special Law or Order of State. It becomes, therefore, important to ask whether these decrees of the Council of Trent have ever been promulgated in Malta. The Law Advisers of the Government in Malta assert that the decrees of the Council of Trent have been promulgated in Malta, but they are unable to say when or by whom or under what circumstances. Clark, in his Colonial Law (p. 717), says—
  "The Code of Rohan, the laws made by the decrees of Hompesch, by Sir Alexander Ball, as Governor for the King of the Two Sicilies, and by Messrs. Cameron and Ball, as Civil Commissioners, are the only rule of justice and the lex scripta actually in force."
  If, then, it is a fact that the decrees of the Council of Trent have been promulgated in the island, it is, at least, very remarkable that the record of that fact cannot be pointed to, and that the record itself has not found its way into the best-known text-books on Colonial Law. But there are other considerations which make it at least doubtful whether the Canon Law is the law of Malta even as regards the question of marriage. The Code Rohan deals with the subject of marriage, but makes no reference to the Canon Law in doing so. Again, in 1828 a Proclamation was issued depriving the Ecclesiastical Courts in Malta of all temporal jurisdiction. The full title of the Proclamation is—
  "A Law reserving the decision of spiritual causes to the Ecclesiastical Courts, and subjecting all classes of His Majesty's subjects in temporal matters to the jurisdiction of His Majesty's lay tribunals."
  Clause 5 is as follows:—
  "Every Ecclesiastical Court or Judge legally established or appointed, or to be established, or appointed in these islands shall have power to enforce his or their lawful sentences and decrees, by such censures, monitions, excommunications, or other spiritual means as the laws of the Church may direct, and which shall not be incompatible with the peace and good order of society, but no such Court or Judge shall have any jurisdiction to enforce, or shall in any manner attempt to enforce, by his own authority, any such sentence or decree by any temporal compulsion."
  I should think, then, it would follow that as this question of marriage involves important civil effects the Ecclesiastical Courts would be acting ultra vires if they were to attempt to invalidate a
  552
  marriage, and by so doing affect a good deal of property, character, and position in the island. But that is not all. Ordinances have been passed by the Council of Government in Malta dealing with marriage, and one issued in 1865 is entirely in conflict with the Canon Law. Yet, before this Ordinance was passed, it was not found necessary to send any special Mission to the Vatican. Moreover, if the Canon Law be the law of Malta, it surely follows that all Protestant marriages, and all mixed marriages which have been celebrated for the last 90 years, are invalid. But this position is utterably untenable, and has, as a matter of fact, been abandoned by the Government. In 1865 the Crown Advocate of Malta, now the Chief Justice of the island, advised, as regards marriages between non-Roman Catholics under licence from the Governor or the Bishop of Gibraltar, that they had received a degree of recognition which constituted a consueto abrogatoria. It follows, therefore, that the Canon Law does not cover the whole of the law of marriage in Malta. The Government are bound to go one step further, and allow that the mixed marriages are valid, seeing that many such marriages have been celebrated under licence from the Governor or the Bishop of Gibraltar. Quite recently a Wesleyan minister (Mr. Laverack) has been refused, and for the first time, a licence from the Governor. This gentleman writes to the Governor, under date July 15th, 1890, as follows:—
  "I have obtained from the Governor 47 marriage licences—39 for marriages in which both parties were not Roman Catholics, and eight for mixed marriages, in which one party was a Roman Catholic and the other was not. I am prepared to maintain that the case referred to was the first case in which, on the part of your office, one single question was asked or one single remark was made about the religion of parties on whose behalf I have applied for licences."
  The hon. and learned Attorney General has not been able to point to a single case where such a marriage was declared invalid because it had not been celebrated according to the form prescribed by the Council of Trent. The Government have promised to bring in a project of law based upon certain declarations of the Pope, which they have accepted, and the first of which is that no marriage in which one or both contracting

  553
  parties are Catholics shall be valid unless celebrated in accordance with the form established by the Council of Trent. I maintain that there is only one real solution of the difficulty, and that is to make civil marriage the law of Malta, and to allow the contracting parties to add whatever religious forms they desire. That is the solution that has been adopted by nearly all the civilised countries of Europe, and I hope it is not too late for such, a solution to be arrived at in the case of the island of Malta. There is only one other point about which I should like to say a word. The expenses of Sir Lintorn Simmons's Mission ought to have appeared on the Estimates, and, if they were not discussed in Parliament, they ought at least to have been discussed in the Council of Government of Malta. But the Mission is extremely unpopular in Malta, and, therefore, the expenses have been defrayed from the Civil Contingencies Fund, so as to stifle all discussion. That is a mean and a shabby device. I hope it is not yet too late for Her Majesty's Government to re-consider their policy in this particular, and to make the expenses of Sir Lintorn Simmons's Mission a charge on the Imperial Exchequer. I will not detain the Committee by any further observation. I simply say that I object to this Mission on its merits. I think the policy shadowed forth in the Mission is an illiberal and retrograde policy, and I shall be delighted if, even at the eleventh hour, Her Majesty's Government will tell us that that policy has been abandoned, and that a new, a better, and a wiser policy will now be inaugurated. (8.30.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I think, at the outset, I should remark on the extraordinary fact that we are dealing with this question on the Foreign Office Vote. I do not know how it came about that the suggestion was made that this discussion should take place on the Foreign Office Vote than on the Colonial Office Vote. But the fact itself is, in my opinion, one of enormous significance; because if we had been dealing with this question as a Colonial Office matter, we should have known that this Motion and these arrangements had been entered into in the interests of Malta alone, and with reference to a bonâ fide state of
  554
  affairs. But down comes the First Lord of the Treasury the leader of the House and says that you must take the Vote under the head of the Foreign Office, and not under the discussion on the Colonial Vote. It would probably be useless to have raised a question of order on this subject, because we have not had such gratifying experience on questions of order that would have justified us in adopting such a course without consideration. I do not know, Mr. Courtney, whether even you were consulted upon the point; and if I were inclined to argue the question in a sense adverse to the view that has been adopted, I should contend that it was entirely out of order to put this Vote under the Foreign Office head, because if it has any relevancy at all, it must be entirely in its connection with the Colonial Office. The Colonial Secretary, however, was too deeply immersed in the Sugar Bounties question—too deeply immersed, I may say, in saccharine—to enable him to deal with the larger question that arises on this subject, and, therefore, we are to be relegated to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Malta being under the Colonial Office, I think it was a distinct transgression on the rights of hon. Members that this subject should be taken as it has been. Why is this discussion concerning Malta out of order on the Vote in which Malta is naturally contained, and why is it in order to take it under the Foreign Office Vote? It is, I suppose, because for the first time in the history of that little island, with its population of some 150,000 inhabitants, we have entered on the question of haute politique. The discussion of this Vote under the Foreign Office head means, I suppose, that the Maltese have no concern whatever with the Colonial Office.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! On the question of order, I would point out how this matter stands. The question of the Mission to the Vatican is properly considered under the head of the Foreign Office Vote alone. Taking the aspect of the question as it relates to the Government of Malta alone, that would naturally come under the Consular Vote; but inasmuch as it was deemed undesirable to break up the discussion into two parts, it was thought advisable to take

  555
  this particular subject under the head of the Foreign Office.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Then I will take it that the authorities of the House were consulted in the matter, and that the question was treated as one of convenience. That is all very well. But why is it that we are discussing the Vote not on the expenses of Sir Lintorn Simmons, but on the salary of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and upon the Motion to reduce that salary by the sum of £100, a reduction which, of course, is a mere bagatelle? Well, what has been the action of the Government in relation to this? They have evidently desired, in the first instance, that everything in relation to this question should be carried on under the rose. They thought they would put down the Vote on the Estimates for the expenses of the missionary, or rather Ambassador, and thereby saddle Malta with the charge; but the Maltese have turned tail, and, so far as we can gather, the Maltese people have not been very well instructed as to what has been going on. It was felt that the Maltese, ignorant as their clergy are said by Sir Lintorn Simmons to be, were too venal and poor. The Attorney General shakes his head. Does he suggest that Sir Lintorn Simmons said those gentlemen were not as he has described them?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,: I shook my head at the statement that they were venal.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I thought the shaking of the head was general. At any rate, those ignorant clergymen were found to have sufficient influence on their own country to affect the Council in Malta, and the Government did not dare to put the expense of this measure on the Maltese Budget. It was accordingly placed on a Vote, of which the Maltese have no cognisance, namely, the Civil Contingencies Vote. Sir Lintorn Simmons starts by saying—and in the remarks I have to make I trust that what I have to say will be extremely disappointing to the Protestants of these islands—that he had a private audience with the Pope. I am here referring to Paper No. 8, page 8. He says that after that official interview His Holiness had a private conversation with him, in which he made many
  556
  minute inquiries, especially as to the system of government, and seemed surprised that the Council there was composed entirely of Her Majesty's Maltese subjects, who had their own Budget, and voted their own expenditure. If this be true, how is it that the expenses of Sir Lintorn Simmons were not put in the Maltese Vote; and why should His Holiness have been surprised at the information he received? Why did not Her Majesty's Government put this Vote under the head which the Maltese Chamber would have bad the opportunity of considering? Beyond this Sir Lintorn Simmons said the Consular Government was composed of Her Majesty's subjects, in the same way, I suppose, as the Privy Council of Ireland is composed of Irish subjects, although it would be utterly absurd to suppose or contend that those persons were really appointed with the consent of the Irish people. Therefore, I assume it would be equally absurd to contend that if you have Maltese subjects on the Maltese Council, consequently the Maltese people have any proper control over the expenditure of their Government. According to Lord Knutsford's Despatch, which, however, is not printed, for reasons which have not been, but ought to be, stated to the House, we find that the Council of Malta is at this moment dissolved, or rather adjourned sine die, although I think it may fairly be termed dissolved. Therefore, restricted as is the franchise in Malta, and susceptible as are the local members of the Council to Government influence, you find that you cannot get the acceptance of a single individual belonging to the elective members, or, at any rate, of a decent number of them, to this transaction. The result was, that some of them sent in their resignation, which Lord Knutsford accepted. I start with the false and erroneous information given to the Pope by Sir Lintorn Simmons, and I will show that in every one particular the suggestions he made became false in the light of facts. Why was this Mission appointed at all? Suddenly, as a bolt from the clouds, Sir Lintorn Simmons, without anybody asking for him, or thinking about Malta, is despatched to the Vatican, forsooth, to consider the question of "intra-mural interments and the validity of mixed marriages," and also to suggest that

  557
  only Maltese priests should be appointed Bishops of Malta. Here was a booted and spurred General who went to the Vatican to suggest that there should be a kind of payment by results in Malta, and promotion among the clergy according as they were obedient to the Governor. He said to the Pope that it would cause much dissatisfaction to the people of Malta if an ecclesiastic were appointed on the occasion of the next vacancy in a Bishopric there who was not a Maltese. He also stated that few of the better class of the natives entered the priest hood; and, possibly, if a Maltese were appointed Bishop, it would constitute an inducement to young men in the island to become priests. Of all the jokes I ever heard nothing is more ludicrous than this red-coated English General expressing anxiety to the Pope on the subject of the promotion of ecclesiastics. That is about the most grotesque joke the 19th Century has produced. And for that purpose Lord Salisbury has spent £1,200, to be paid out of the Civil Contingency Fund, all in the interests of these poor, ill-treated, Maltese priests! No one who has not a very large gullet could swallow that. Then this man talked about the feelings of the priests like some person from Tokenhouse Yard, practised in the sale of advowsons, for, on page 5, he says—
  "I also gave the Cardinal a short Memorandum on the subject of the immigration into Malta of foreign priests."
  He says that as though he were speaking of rinderpest, or cattle plague, or tuberculosis. I can hardly understand this objection to foreign priests, raised by this delicate-minded Ambassador. It is very much the same feeling as we heard expressed in America three or four years ago, when everybody declared that "the Chinese must go, for they came in like locusts and eat up the bread of the Americans." Sir Lintorn Simmons, in his Despatch, went on to say that the Maltese priests were very poor. Many of them, even when they acted as professors in a Seminary, only had £8 or £10 a year, and they objected very strongly to the immigration of foreign priests. That, surely, is a very handsome expression for Sir Lintorn Simmons to have used. Monsignor Pace, an Italian whom Sir Lintorn Simmons admitted to be one of the most loyal
  558
  subjects of the Queen, is one of the foreign priests thus referred to. Sir Lintorn further said—
  "It is reasonable that the education of the clergy should be of such a nature as to enable them to keep up proper relations with the Government authorities,"
  so he evidently was anxious to secure the appointment of a Bishop who would support Her Majesty's Government. I have been trying to find out what was the raison d'être of this Mission. I pass over one reason which has been given and which must have been delightful to the hon. and pious Member for Boston, whom I see in his place—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The head of our most intensely Protestant Government has declared his anxiety for an understanding to be come to with the Vatican, and in the course of his Despatch he says:—"There are, as you are aware, several Maltese questions of primary importance." Before I finish reading this, I should like the House, while I am reading it, to substitute for "Malta" the word "Ireland," and for "Gozo" the word "Dublin," and in another and proper place to insert the words "Dublin Castle," and then hon. Members will see exactly, in my opinion, what was the real object of this Mission. The Despatch runs—
  "There are, as you are aware, several Maltese questions of primary importance."
  I should like to know how an island only half a dozen miles round can have questions of primary importance. It is more than I can understand, except the phrase be due to the high-flown language which a man acquires after he has been at the Foreign Office for a short time. But to continue the Despatch—
  "There are several Maltese questions of primary importance, as well as those of lesser urgency, as to which a clear and thorough understanding with the Vatican would be of advantage to all concerned. Among these I may mention the course to be followed on the occurrence of a vacancy in the Bishoprics of Malta or Gozo."
  The idea of Lord Salisbury solemnly declaring that the appointment of a Bishop of Gozo was a matter of primary importance to this country! It is difficult to believe he would have said such a thing if it were possible to disbelieve anything of the kind after his conduct on the Schouval off Memorandum. Then

  559
  there is a line following the extract I have read which runs, "and certain other high ecclesiastical offices." Now, there are only two Bishoprics in the entire island, and, therefore, are we to understand that the other high ecclesiastical offices are those which carry with them salaries of £8 or £10 a year? Are these the high offices to which the noble Marquess refers? Then the Despatch goes on to refer—and this is really charming—to the great power of the principal clerical functionaries in Malta to influence the mass of the people, and it suggests that this renders it
  "most essential that in their selection the Holy See should keep prominently in view the value of securing the services of persons actuated by a friendly disposition towards this country, and prepared to support in all proper ways the reasonable directions of the local Government."
  Well, of all the naked, unashamed documents that ever came into my hands this document addressed to Sir Lintorn Simmons is foremost in absolute nudity! I suppose that Lord Salisbury must have known that this Despatch would be ultimately published. Perhaps he did not, in the same way as he supposed that the Schouvaloff Memorandum would have never been published. But I put this to the Committee, that the people of Malta have never been an insurrectionary people. There has been no trouble among them. They have not worried themselves about "intramural interments." They have had no riots on these questions, and no doubt they have only been glad that their ancestors have found a proper sepulchre in their native soil; and, that being so, why was the suggestion made that the people of Malta were in a state of riot and rebellion? Why was it pointed out that the bishops and clergy were the people who could affect the popular mind and control it in the interests of the Government? Was it only about these poor Maltese subjects, who only speak an Arabic dialect, that the Government were thinking? I do not think anyone will believe that. The Maltese are as quiet as mice. There is no trouble amongst them. Yet Lord Salisbury despatches this man to the Vatican for the purpose of getting bishops and priests appointed who, in his own words—
  560
  "Would be actuated by a friendly disposition towards this country, and prepared to support in all proper ways the reasonable directions of the local Government."
  I now come to the consideration of the means taken by Sir Lintorn Simmons to effect this object. He first starts by grossly libelling the Maltese priests. Of course, we know that to this booted and spurred General the Maltese clergy were mere pawns in the game he was playing, and that he supposed they had no feelings of their own, for he absolutely, behind their backs, and without giving them an opportunity of self-defence, told the Cardinal Secretary of State that he considered it advisable that his Eminence should be made acquainted with the deplorable condition of the priesthood as regarded education. We often hear in this House about the injustice of attacking an absent man, and yet this was what an English General did in the case of the poor Maltese clergy. He says, on page 4 of his Despatch—
  "I gave him (the Cardinal Secretary of State) a confidential copy of an extract from the last Report of the Director of Education in Malta, and the remarks of the Senate of the University thereon, and I told him that I considered it desirable that his Eminence should be fully acquainted with the deplorable condition of the priesthood as regarded education, which had often been the subject of conversation between the Bishop of Malta and myself during my stay in the island. The Cardinal Secretary seemed surprised at the state of the ignorance of the priesthood."
  Will it be believed that what this gentleman called ignorance is what in this country—as hon. Members for Wales will understand—would be called an ignorance of the English language; that the people were unable to read the Saturday Review or Ally Sloper? Will it be believed, also, that it was by the distinct act of Her Majesty's Government that the Maltese were educated in their native dialect, almost to the exclusion of the English, and certainly of Italian? Sir Patrick Keenan was sent over from Dublin to make a report on the education of the Maltese, and, with a view to check the influence of a supposed branch of the Irredentist agitation, he recommended that the native Maltese tongue should be taught and the people educated in it, although in Ireland the same man suppressed the use of the Irish language, which 20 years previously,

  561
  when he was simply an Inspector, he had advocated the teaching of. Of course, we know that for his change of opinion in favour of suppressing Gaelic, he was made a Privy Councillor and given the title of knight. Sir Lintorn Simmons, in his Despatch, mentions Monsignor Pace, as if he concurred in the attack on the Maltese clergy. What is the fact? The other day the German Fleet, together with war vessels of other countries, was riding at anchor at Valetta, and a number of the Maltese clergy, able to speak half a dozen languages, went out to the vessels and ministered to the sailors. When you charged Cardinal Rampolla with acquiescing in that statement as to the ignorance of the Maltese priesthood, you suppressed the fact that the clergy of Valetta adopted a unanimous protest against the insinuations and attacks of Sir Lintorn Simmons, and that they also sent their declaration to Cardinal Rampolla, who, in turn, sent it back, containing a severe snub to Sir L. Simmons. Therefore, this attack on the Maltese clergy for their alleged ignorance falls to the ground absolutely. I now come to what I conceive to be the real object of Her Majesty's Government in sending this Mission. Sir L. Simmons handed Cardinal Rampolla a document which set out what he desired as to the appointment of bishops, and I do not think that Napoleon, when he started out to make himself head of everything in Europe, considering the difficulties of his position, conceived a more ambitious scheme. What was it he suggested to the Vatican? That on the probable occurrence of a vacancy in either the bishoprics of Malta or Gozo, the fact should be communicated by Her Majesty's Government officially to the Ecclesiastical Authorities at Rome, and an understanding should be come to confidentially as to the nomination by His Holiness of a successor and his coadjutor… That the Papal Authorities should then announce the appointment of the nominee, who has been agreed upon, and that Her Majesty's Government should publicly concur in the appointment, thereby authorising the assumption by the new bishop of the temporalities of his See. Sir Lintorn Simmons suggested the adoption of an arrangement, similar to that embodied in the concordat with Austria—a Catholic country. I do not
  562
  know how better to describe this startling proposal than as Simmons's essence. Here is an attempt at subjecting the temporal powers to the spiritual influences; and this is done by a No-Popery Government—by a Government that would not, this Session, pass a Bill to enable the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to be a Catholic, and who scouted the idea that a man in the position of the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, if ever a liberal Government came into power, and because he belongs to a derided creed, should ever attain the position of Lord Chancellor! Did Sir Lintorn Simmons present the Cardinal with a copy of the Bill of the right hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs? If he did, then I would suggest that there should be a little addendum to it in the shape of a copy of the papers we get, indicating the dropped Orders of the Day. Then the Cardinal will find the fate of that Bill, and it would be instructive on the point to which I have now referred, the enlightened and intelligent desire of Her Majesty's Government to procure equality of treatment for Catholics. Now let us come to the facts: Her Majesty's Government approached the Vatican, and here let me say that I cordially approve, so far as it is given to a politician to approve at all, of every word contained in the replies to Her Majesty's Government of the Papal Authorities; it is the gloss, the insincere and deceptive gloss, put upon them by this Ambassador to which I object. Will it be believed that while you in Malta pretended to enter into negotiations with the Pope in order that you might have the induction to the bishoprics of Gozo and Malta of your own nominees, so far back as 1838 an Act was passed making it absolutely illegal for the Pope to nominate to any of those bishoprics without the assent of Her Majesty's Government? I mention this as showing the hypocrisy of this Government of law and order. This is law and order according to the Maltese aspect of affairs, that if any person shall be nominated, collated, or appointed by any Foreign Power—a handsome way of describing the Holy See—to any church, ecclesiastical office, or benefice, such nomination, collation, or appointment shall not be valid until approved by the Governor. Is that Act in force still? And if it is in force,

  563
  what is the meaning of this Mission, whereby you invite the Pope to appoint nominees of the English Government after confidential communication, there being an Act in existence under which you will not allow His Holiness to appoint at all? Now, in Clause 1 we find that the legislators of 1838, though bent on haut politique, yet had frugal minds, for they declared what should be done ad interim with these beggarly stipends of £8 or £10 these Maltese priests prize so much—that they should not go to the bishop or capitular vicar, but to the Governor. This Ordinance was promulgated in due and solemn form on January 12, 1838. Is the Attorney General aware of that Act, and if so, how is it, since you have full power and authority to prevent this ''horde of foreign immigrants"—for that is what is meant by the Lintorn Simmons expression—Rome is a Foreign Power—he speaks of foreign aliens as if they were "Heathen Chinese" or other classes swarming into the island to eat of the bread of the Maltese—when you have full power to prevent them entering, when you can "slaughter them at the port of debarcation," so to speak—why, having this power, did you send a Mission to Rome at the cost of £1,200? What was your object? Of course, we know that intramural interments was not the cause of this. And now to contrast the words of His Holiness—language to which the most extreme politician owning his sway can only give an absolute and unqualified adhesion—with the language put into the mouth of the Cardinal by Sir Lintorn Simmons. Sir L. Simmons, in the first place, mentions that he was received at a private audience, at which he presented, along with another person, Captain Ross of Bladensburg. Que diable allait-il faire dans cette galère? Captain Ross of Bladensburg is one of the attachés who intrigue at Dublin Castle. What is his authority, who he is, what he amounts to on the asset of brains, of these things the world is wholly ignorant. [Murmurs from the Ministerial Benches.] If I have aroused the susceptibilities of any strong Protestant on that side of the House I am sorry, but I cannot help it. It was well said by Cobbett that if you saw the whole of the London editors in a room
  564
  together you would think very little of their opinions, and that is what I say of Captain Ross of Bladensburg, of Lintorn Simmons, and the rest of those connected with this Mission. Here is the conversation, as represented by Lintorn Simmons, anxious to enlarge his phylacteries—
  "His Holiness asked me, among other things, if my Mission was confined to Malta only, and I replied, 'My instructions limited my Mission to the affairs of that island.' "
  Then Lintorn Simmons goes on to give his version of the words of His Holiness the Pope, much in the manner a police shorthand writer in Ireland takes down the words of an Irish Member. Sir L. Simmons writes—
  "His Holiness replied in a speech which lasted not less than ten minutes,"
  —the corrected report of the speech could be read in a minute and a half by the clock—
  "in which he expressed his desire that Her Majesty's subjects should perform their duties to their Sovereign loyally and faithfully, and should respect the law, seeing that the Church in the Queen's vast dominions was free and unfettered, and that liberty prevailed throughout in an admirable manner. In regard to this liberty he mentioned that during the Duke of Norfolk's Mission he had publicly spoken in that sense, and he desired to repeat what he then said on that subject."
  That is the Simmons version.
  CAPTAIN BETHELL: I rise to order. I wish to ask, as a point of order, whether the hon. Gentleman is in order in referring to a high officer, the Governor of Malta, in the almost insulting way he does.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have no power to correct the hon. and learned Member in his style, but I think he would be better advised if he followed the ordinary usages of society.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Sir Lintorn Simmons is the paid servant of the taxpayers, and I, as a taxpayer, contributing my mite to his upkeep and maintenance, will appreciate him in the manner I think that gentleman deserves. I have given the House the gospel according to Simmons, but the very guarded and careful language used by His Holiness is considerably different. And as to liberty to Catholics, which prevails in this realm in such an admirable manner, we owe thanks to nobody but ourselves.

  565
  God rest the honest soul of Daniel O'Connell, and if Catholics, ay, and Nonconformists and Jews, have now religious liberty, they owe it to that great heart which is enshrined in its proper place almost under the shadow of the Vatican. To suggest that Catholics in Ireland owe their liberties to the Government, for Sir Lintorn Simmons to put into the mouth of His Holiness such a statement as he does, is to make a declaration in absolute forgetfulness of the facts of history. I venture to express my opinion that if it were in the power of Her Majesty's Advisers they would not make liberty to prevail in so admirable a manner. It is not 50 years since in this country Catholics were subjected to penal persecution. Our forefathers won our rights and liberties in face of most abominable persecution, and O'Connell, by those appeals which the Times said were condensed of "Irish bog." won those rights for the cowering Norfolks and others who now seek to defame his race. To suggest that we owe our rights to the spontaneous action of the British Government is to attempt to ignore the facts of history. Nobody can take exception to the official letters of Cardinal Rampolla and the declarations and speeches transmitted by him. Having arranged the transaction to which I am about to refer, Sir L. Simmons gave to Lord Salisbury an account of his farewell audience of His Holiness, who used the usual diplomatic expressions of kindness and goodwill towards Her Majesty. Then Lintorn Simmons goes on to say that His Holiness, having received the Mission with satisfaction, went on to say that negotiations conducted in this way would be beneficial, not only as regards the people of Malta, but might also be usefully extended to other parts of the Empire where Catholic interests were concerned. Well, what was the arrangement to which this speech was made a pendant? For my own part I have not the smallest doubt that this speech amounts to an absolute—I do not like to call it misrepresentation, but an absolute want of appreciation of what was said by His Holiness. His Holiness was thinking of one thing and Simmons was thinking of another. Simmons was not caring about Malta; he was thinking about Ireland. Much Lord Salisbury cared about
  566
  intra-mural interments, the bishopric of Goza, appointments to seminaries at £8 and £10 a year, or whether young Maltese priests should be promoted or not. Sir L. Simmons handed Cardinal Rampolla a document which set out what he desired, and among the many extraordinary State Papers, the most remarkable Memorandum I have ever read is this one. It sets forth—
  "On the occurrence, or probable occurrence, of a vacancy in either the bishopric of Malta or Goza the fact should be communicated by Her Majesty's Government officially to the Ecclesiastical Authorities at Rome."
  Also—
  "An understanding should be come to confidentially as to the nomination by His Holiness of a successor. Further, the Papal Authorities, after announcing the appointment of the nominee who has been agreed upon to Her Majesty's Government officially, should then issue the Bull of appointment, and Her Majesty's Government should then publish their concurrence in the appointment."
  Well, what was the consideration for all this? It apparently was that a projet de loi, or, as we should call it, a Bill, should be introduced into the Legislative Council of Malta to regulate the civil effect of marriages heretofore celebrated or hereafter to be celebrated. That pledge was solemnly made to Cardinal Rampolla by a letter dated January 18, 1890. But Her Majesty's Government have broken faith with the Holy See in regard to that point. The projet de loi has never been revealed, and the ultra-Protestants who interrupt me on the other side of the House have been able to make their prejudices prevail. Her Majesty's Government, after having extracted from the Pope these declarations regarding marriages, intra-mural interments, seminaries, and appointments, have broken faith with the Holy Father as to their part of the transaction. Eight months have elapsed, and the Legislative Council of Malta have now adjourned sine die. The hon. Member for Huddersfield asked for declarations from the Government on the question of marriages. Nothing can give Catholics more pride than the absolutely inflexible position which the Pope took up while all these intrigues were going on at the Vatican. With all the indirect pressure brought to bear, the Holy Father has refused to minimise or soften one expression any more than the Holy See did in the case

  567
  of the marriage of Henry VIII. Here is the declaration, and from it the Pope has declined to recede. It is the law wherever the Catholic Church is known, that if you want a valid marriage between Catholics, or where one of the parties is a Catholic, it must be in accordance with the decrees of the Council of Trent, where those decrees have been promulgated. From that position the Pope refuses to recede in spite of all your endeavours, and you, the Government, have simply stirred up questions affecting the legitimacy of a number of Her Majesty's subjects. You have struck at the possibility of the right of succession to property in those cases, and the result is that you may have suits pending, not only in the Maltese Courts, but wherever Her Majesty's declaration can take effect, founded on the fact that, under that Declaration the Canon Law now prevails in Malta, and that all mixed marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics are illegal, the offspring of those marriages being illegal. What has been decreed by the Pope is nothing more than what is the law in Ireland at this moment. If you want a good Catholic marriage, it must be done in the Catholic way. If you want a civil marriage, you must go to the Registrar. That is all it amounts to. But why should the Government stir up this question? Numbers of Catholics and Protestants have been married in Malta, and the result of your interference is that if you want a Catholic marriage it must be celebrated according to Catholic Canons established for centuries. It is the Government which has started this hare, which they think may carry them on to Dublin, Galway, and Kerry. You deal not only with marriages in the future; all marriages heretofore celebrated are illegal. That is a pretty pickle. Every issue of every such marriage will have the stigma of bastardy attached. We know what was the result in Ireland of the declaration in 1840 as to Presbyterians. We know how the declaration then as to all marriages of Presbyterians was received. Here in Malta you have received a declaration from the Pope, who is the supreme authority, and there you will have to stick. What will hon. Gentleman opposite say when they have to go down to
  568
  their constituents and defend this remarkable performance? Oh, no doubt, the Catholic Home Secretary, who cheers, will defend it. Probably he, with his strong ecclesiastical tendencies, is at the bottom of it, assisted by the Attorney General. Certainly it would be a grand thing for the Party of "No Popery," who rebelled at the idea of a Catholic Lord Lieutenant—the Duke of Norfolk, for instance. Then, there is the Member for South Tyrone; he would never consent to be ruled by the Duke of Norfolk—to swallow one of the bitterest compounds that ever a Tory was asked to swallow. The Party opposite is in this position. They have made the Treaty with Rome—they, the great Protestant Party, the Party of Henry VIII., Queen Bess, and all the rest of them. [Mr. ATKINSON: Hear, hear!] No doubt the hon. Member for Boston goes to sleep with Foxe's Book of Martyrs under his pillow. Well, even he will have to go down to his constituents, Protestant to the backbone, and defend the Government which has placed the law of the Queen under the Canon Law of Rome. [Mr. ATKINSON: No.] Are you going to break faith with the Pope? [Mr. ATKINSON: Yes, and laughter.] Well, we have heard of "honour rooted into dishonour," and the Member for Boston is going to break faith with the Pope. Is the Under Secretary going to break faith with him? Is the Attorney General? Is the Catholic Home Secretary? Are they going to join in the declaration of the hon. Member for Boston, and say that the projet de loi, which is promised, shall never be passed? Another ground of anxiety to multitudes of people in Malta is the refusal of the Government to allow the Italian language to be used officially. The ruling idea with Sir L. Simmons is, that English ideas should be made to prevail throughout the island. Of all the delusions that could prevail under an Imperial Government the greatest is that by spreading the Imperial language you conquer feelings of nationality. If the English Government had let the Irish language alone they might not have had an Irish Party to deal with today. If they are so anxious to enforce English on the Maltese, why do they not carry out their doctrine in Wales, and compel Nonconformist ministers in Wales to use the English language? If

  569
  the Maltese spoke English to-morrow their feeling of patriotism would only be intensified. We obtained Malta by fraud. We took it from the French, to whom it had been surrendered by the Knights of Jerusalem, on the pretence of giving it back again when we had done with it; but we managed never to have done with it. In the Capitulations we came under obligations to respect the Italian language and the Catholic religion, and we have done neither. The inference I draw from the Papers is, that it is not merely the Irish Catholics who cannot trust Her Majesty's Ambassadors at Rome, but the authorities at the Vatican will not trust them either. The Roman authorities will be likely to say in future that the English Government might be glad to obtain their support in Ireland or in Malta, but that no concession can be allowed, because English Protestant bigotry will not allow the price to be paid.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made a long indictment of the Government, but he has not struck us severely, and there will not be much difficulty in showing that many of his statements are exaggerated or even erroneous. For instance, the hon. and learned Gentleman said we have violated our pledges to the Maltese people because in the Capitulations we had promised to respect the Italian language. In the Capitulations, I cannot find any mention of the Italian language. But we have respected their own language. Maltese is taught in their schools, although English and Italian are also taught. I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have made a slip on this point, because a similar slip was made the other day by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian in his speech to certain members of the Wesleyan body. The right hon. Gentleman accused the Government of breaking faith with the Maltese people by endeavouring to abolish the Italian language, which, according to him, was the common language of the country. It is a curious thing that 13 or 14 years ago it was made a matter of complaint against the English Government that they had imposed the Italian language on the Maltese in their Courts of Law, and that multitudes were brought before the Courts of Law who did not understand
  570
  the official language that was used in them. As a matter of fact, a very small percentage of the population know any Italian at all. Out of a total population of about 154,000, 24,287, or 16·2 per cent., have some knowledge of English or Italian, or both, and the remaining 125,000, or 83·7 per cent., have no knowledge of either of these languages. The hon. and learned gentleman has covered a somewhat thin argument with a good deal of pleasantry and some rhetoric; he even read in a seriocomic style a speech of His Holiness the Pope.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I did not.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I am in the recollection of the Committee.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I claim to reply to the right hon. Gentleman. I rise to a point of order. I submit that the right hon. Gentleman cannot enter into the manner in which I read the statement referred to.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order; it is one of appreciation of style.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I should not have ventured to read it in the style of the hon. and learned Member, who also spoke with contempt of a gentleman who was one of the Mission. Whatever else may be said about the Mission, at all events what was done was done in the face of day. Everything was done without secrecy. It was avowed from the first what the object of the Mission was to be, and at the earliest possible date the result of the Conference was submitted to Parliament and made known to the world. There was no intrigue in the matter at all. These were matters of fair negotiation; they were settled on grounds that were avowed, for purposes which the Government were not ashamed of. There was no mystery about the expenses of the Mission; it was a charge upon the Revenues of Malta. In the Constitution Act there was a sum of £1,000 reserved for special purposes at the discretion of the Secretary of State. There have been similar reservations in the cases of some of the colonies, and they have prevented the paralysis of the Executive Government when Legislative Assemblies have thrown out Appropriation Bills. It is in the power of the Secretary of State, under an Act of the English Parliament, to employ this

  571
  money for any purpose at his discretion. The Government avow it, and the House can, if it wishes, censure us for misapplying the money. There is no concealment, no intrigue; it is a perfectly open transaction. The hon. and learned Gentleman said the consent of the elective members of the Council of Malta could not be obtained. I have before me the Report of the Debate on the subject, and I find that in a small House, in which there were only 14 elected members, six out of that number voted for the Government. One of these elected members, who cannot be spoken of in the contemptuous terms which the hon. and learned Gentleman applies to those who agree with the Government, made a very able speech indeed in the Debate. He defended the Mission, and pointed out that it would not be in the power of the Council to legislate on the subject until the consent of the Holy See had been obtained. The people of Malta are intensely Catholic and obedient to their superiors, and they would not consent to alter the law of marriage except in accordance with the wishes and views of the Holy See. Was it tolerable, he said, that uncertainty should exist on the subject of marriage? He further said that Malta was the only country where the civil laws were silent upon the subject of marriage, and that Sir Lintorn Simmons, in undertaking this Mission, had done good, service to the community of the island. I commend to the hon. and learned Gentleman that speech of one of the elected members of the Council of Malta. The hon. and learned Member has asked why Sir Lintorn Simmons was sent out on this Mission. My answer is that this gentleman was sent out for the purpose of settling most important questions. It is all very well for hon. Members who live in this country under a different system of laws to make light of this matter, but it is a very serious question for the children of those who have been married in a doubtful way. This is not the first time that this subject has arisen. It was discussed in 1865, and it has been considered several times since. The Government have been advised that it is necessary there should be legislation on the question, because the position of so many people in the island is so painfully uncertain. In the case of certain mixed marriages
  572
  there must be doubts, and there must also be doubts about the marriages of Nonconformists. The hon. Member for Huddersfield has said that he would make civil marriages compulsory in all cases, but that is not the present law in Malta, and I should like to know how the hon. Member proposes to effect the alteration in the law that he says ought to be made unless the consent of the Holy See can be obtained to it. Does he suppose the Catholic Legislature of Malta will pass such a law? Would the hon. Member for Longford be willing to make civil marriages the rule and religious marriages the exception?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: In Ireland the law with regard to marriages is admirable and just, because Catholics can be married as Catholics, whilst Turks and atheist people can be married as such.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Does the hon. and learned Member think such a law would have a chance of passing in Malta? If not, there is a good deal of talk about nothing. The hon. Member spoke about the appointment of bishops, and threw much ridicule on the ordinance of 1838, whereby any prelate or priest was prohibited from holding office in Malta on the appointment of any potentate and without the consent of the British Government. He asked whether that ordinance was still in force. Well, it is unrepealed, but it has never been put in force because the Holy See has never concurred in it. If we lay aside for a moment Party feelings, it must appeal to the common-sense of Parliament that those who hold such high office, and are so much in the affections of their people as the Bishops, should be men who can work for the good of the people and in common with the civil Government. I think that is so self-evident that I need not say any more about it. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that these questions of burials in churches, the number of foreign ecclesiastics, and other matters were not the primary objects of the Mission. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that Sir Lintorn Simmons began by attacking the clergy for their want of education. But let me point out that the complaint that the clergy were not for the most part well-educated came from the Director of Public Instruction, who is a Roman Catholic, and from the Senate of

  573
  the University who are Roman Catholics. You may call it an attack to say that the clergy, though pious and devoted to the care of their flock, have not the knowledge to give reasonable and elementary scientific information. The hon. and learned Gentleman has spoken of the reply of the Vatican to Monsignor Pace. This document has not come into my hands officially, but it was published in Malta as included in the pastoral of the Archbishop.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I asked for it to-day, and I was told that the Government had not got it.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I think my right hon. Friend said it was not in our official possession. I do not, therefore, see how we can lay it before Parliament as an official document.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is not the right hon. Gentleman an official, and has he not got it?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I have it as published in Malta in Italian, and I have had it translated, and the Committee will see it is in no sense a snub administered to Sir Lintorn Simmons. Writing on June 20th to the Archbishop, Cardinal Rampolla says:—
  "I have treated very closely with the Holy Father about the papers addressed to me on the 9th inst., of their contents, as well as with regard to the petition of the Most High Chapter of the same date, accompanying your letter of the 12th. His Holiness is very afflicted for the excitement caused in the island in consequence of the despatches published, and especially to the very offensive bearing of the Liberal Press towards your lordship and the Holy See. The Holy Father highly condemns the dissoluteness to which the Press has given way, which, being urged through passion and political parties, disguises the facts and does its best to throw the whole blame on all that concerns religion. His Holiness has heard with great pleasure the information that you afford on the education of your clergy, which showing their great ability is a safeguard against different comments which have been insinuated through the late disclosures. As, however, on account of the competition to which the clergy is nowadays subjected, and the exigencies of the present time bind the clergy to higher efforts in order to maintain the position which they have ever occupied in the arts and sciences, so the Holy Father from the very beginning of his Pontificate has always taken great interest towards improving the ecclesiastical studies. For the same reason he has tried to make agreements between the Civil Authorities and the seminaries of the island in order to promote scientific as well as material advantages. The irreligious Press gives a false interpretation to his Holiness's wishes, whilst they have been received with
  574
  veneration and thankfulness by very flourishing institutes in Rome, in Lovania, and elsewhere as a proof of the anxiety towards their good by the Head of the Church. I impart the above impressions to your lordship for your comfort in your present troubles, and in order that you may explain and remove such misunderstandings, and to assure the Chapter of the good impression arrived at after reading the above-mentioned petition."
  MR. SUMMERS: Can the right hon. Gentleman read us the edict of the Archbishop?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I will read the Archbishop's letter, which is even more instructive. On June 9, the Archbishop, in writing to the Cardinal, said—
  "Following my last letter directed to your Most Reverend Eminence, dated May 21, several copies of the correspondence between Sir L. Simmons and the Vatican have reached here, and I think it my duty to inform you of the great excitement which has been caused to the public by the grave stain of ignorance attributed by the Envoy Extraordinary without any exception to all the clergy of Malta. This bad temper had already manifested itself when, a few months ago, the Report of the Director of Public Instruction for the scholastic year 1888–89 was published, which has served as base, as is inferred from the said correspondence, to the information given to the Holy See; and I had not failed on this occasion to make to the said Director opportune remonstrances for his having interposed in matters of merely ecclesiastical comptency with too great humiliation to the pupils of the seminary, whom he compared to the simple Uditori of the Royal University. Certainly, having regard to the present times, it is sufficiently desirable that the instruction of the clergy should be higher and extended to many subjects formerly little cared about. And it is for this reason that I had hardly assumed the government of this diocese before I made it my duty, in a letter of July 4 of last year, to demand counsels and instructions from the Holy See for the reform of the small seminary, proposing for this object the Italian Fathers of the Company of Jesus, who had rendered me immense services in the direction of the Seminary of Gozo."
  The Archbishop then spoke of the clergy of Malta, and everybody knows that the Cathedral and beneficed clergy of Malta are distinguished for their piety and often for their theological knowledge.
  MR. SUMMERS: I referred to the excommunication of three Maltese papers because they had ventured to criticise the Mission of Sir Lintorn Simmons to the Vatican.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I do not know that that proves anything, or shows that Sir L. Simmons was wrong. With regard to the argument as to the appointment of bishops, I believe that it is a

  575
  common condition in Catholic countries that the appointment of bishops should have the consent, in some shape or form, of the Government.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: This is not a Catholic country.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Malta is a Catholic country, and it is with it that we have to do.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will you extend that to Ireland?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I will pass over some of what I think the unsuitable language which the hon. and learned Gentleman has condescended to employ with reference to servants of the State. I think that they are entitled to the respect of the public, and that it is rather the individual who depreciates their services in unsuitable language than they, who is lowered thereby. I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member should have taken the opportunity to rake up controversies which I had hoped were getting forgotten. No doubt Party and religious spirit ran high in past times, but the liberty which Catholics enjoy is now acknowledged. In the more careful and argumentative speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield the Catholic Law of Marriage was the chief point. I would point out that in this country, until the law was changed, the Canon Law was the only law by which irregular marriages could be voided—marriages, for instance, which were voidable for affinity. The hon. Member has referred to an argument which has been used elsewhere, namely, that Malta possesses the Code Rohan, so that it is quite unnecessary to appeal to the Canon Law with regard to marriage. That is an extraordinary misconception. It is quite well known what the Code Rohan is; it is a Code providing for the devolution of property in connection with marriage, and does not contain a word about the marriage ceremony. I happen to have the Report of a case founded on a marriage which took place under the Code Rohan in 1793, which came before the Privy Council in 1882, which shows that the Code has nothing to do with religious ceremonies, for the marriage is stated to have been celebrated by the licence of the Bishop after the grant of a Papal dispensation on account of consanguinity, while the contract in
  576
  regard to property is afterwards stated to have been made "according to the laws of the Greeks and Romans." The Civil Law of Malta is silent on the subject of the ceremony, and it is only the law of the Church or settled custom to which we can appeal.
  MR. SUMMERS: The Code Rohan refers to the most ancient custom of the island and the usage of the Greeks and the Romans, and not to the Canon Law.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Yes, the Code refers to the Greek and Roman customs, but with reference to property; it has nothing to do with the ceremony of marriages. With regard to the argument of the hon. Member for Huddersfield as to custom, I have the authority of a high Member of the Government of Malta for saying that no mixed marriage—no marriage between a Protestant and a Roman Catholic—was ever known to have taken place by the Governor's licence except through incorrect representations, through a false declaration that there was no impediment. If, for instance, a Protestant soldier is going to be married to a Maltese Roman Catholic girl by a Protestant minister, he cannot get a licence without making an incorrect representation, and placing any children of the marriage in a very undesirable position. A suggestion has been made that civil marriages should be the rule, and that the ecclesiastical ceremony should follow; but we have to take the actual conditions of life in the island into account, and to deal with the people as they live. The people of Malta are undoubtedly greatly attached to their religion, and will hear of no measures that tamper with it, and it would be impossible to deal with Malta on the lines suggested, except by an exertion of Imperial power which would set aside the Council. Hon. Members may rest assured that the matter will not be allowed to rest, and I hope that when the people of Malta understand the question better, and when some of the suspicion and exaggeration thrown over the question have been swept away, they will see that there is no intention to tamper either with their nationality or their religion, but only a desire to remove doubts in regard to marriage which operate to their disadvantage, and to raise the status of their clergy.
  MR. ATKINSON: I do not understand why the hon. And learned Member for Longford so positively addressed himself to me during his speech. If he moves a reduction of the Vote on account of the Mission, he will find me supporting him in the Lobby. We are told by the Under Secretary that we are dealing with a Catholic country, and that we ought to continue the Canon Law. That I repudiate. I do not think that we, as Protestant Members of Parliament, ought to be called on.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: We are not Protestant Members of Parliament.
  MR. ATKINSON: Then as Members of a Protestant Parliament.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: No!
  MR. ATKINSON: Then, as Members of the Parliament of a Protestant country, we ought not to be called on to do that. I should, however, like to explain the grounds on which I intend to vote. If I had two evils presented to me, one of which I must accept, I should accept the lesser of the two. If, for instance, I had the choice of either delivering Ireland over to be governed by the hon. Member for North Longford and his friends, or of supporting the Government on this question, I should say the former alternative was a gigantic evil, and I should vote for the Government. I would give an anti-Protestant vote, and I think I should be perfectly consistent in doing so. What I said on the hustings I still adhere to, that is, that there are certain questions I put before questions as between Conservatism and Liberalism, and one of these is Protestantism. Nor can any imputation lie against me that this is conduct unworthy of a Member of a British Parliament. Allusion has been made to a so-called Wesleyan Conference. It was not a Conference, but it was a dinner for the purpose of promoting the election of a gentleman to an official position on the Committee of privileges of the Wesleyan Body. I was not present, but had I been asked I should have attended and have expressed my sentiments before the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton was called on to deliver his. I can only regret that neither that right hon. Gentleman nor the right hon.
  578
  Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian is now present, for ever since the dinner I have sought an opportunity to give utterance in their presence to my views on the subject. I also regret that no Members of the Wesleyan Methodist Body are now sitting among hon. Members opposite.
  MR. PICKARD: The hon. Member is mistaken.
  MR. ATKINSON: Oh, yes, there is one Gentleman present. I believe I was the first to arouse the Government to a sense of their duty on this subject by a question which I put in this House. It appears to me hon. Gentlemen opposite are only prepared to advocate the reform of abuses when they require a cry for the hustings. I hope the time will not arrive when the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, a Member of a Protestant Government, will be able to guarantee the carrying out of the Canon Law on the subject of marriage. We do not wish for the interference of the Pope in regard to marriages—whether mixed or unmixed—in Malta any more than in this country.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: I wish, as a Protestant to the backbone, to explain the reasons why I shall support the Government, who have acted in the best way for the interests of morality and true religion. The hon. and learned Member for Longford charged Sir Lintorn Simmons with misrepresentation for saying that the Pope recognises that the Church is free and unfettered in this country, and that liberty prevails. The hon. and learned Member says the Pope could not have used these words, as they are so far from the fact. But on the next page I find that in the official summary of the speech of the Pope, prepared by Cardinal Rampolla, it is said—
  "He spoke also of the submission and obedience which these subjects give to the civil laws, and, as he had done on a similar occasion at the time of his sacerdotal jubilee, he rejoiced at the liberty and peace guaranteed to the faithful in all parts of the British Empire."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Liberty which has been won.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: That was not the point. There is no occasion to refer to the past unless one is actuated by the mischievous and diabolical spirit which delights to arouse animosity. I put it to the Committee, and to the hon. Member for Longford himself, whether the words I have read do not clearly show that Sir Lintorn Simmons did not misrepresent the speech of the Pope. It is unnecessary for one who holds Protestant opinions, and who, to a certain extent, may be said to represent the Low Church Party in the Church of England, to excuse himself for rising to rebut the attack made on the Government. I notice that the newspapers representing the Low Church Party have alluded to this Mission to the Pope in terms of disparagement. One has said that "the Government represents Conservatism as divorced from Protestantism," and another journal (styled not inappropriately the British Weekly) representing some body of Dissenters, says that the Mission, "like Dr. Johnson's leg of mutton, was ill-bred, ill-fed, ill-killed, ill-kept, ill-dressed;" that it was "conceived in secrecy and sin and brought forth in open iniquity." From those opinions I, as a Low Churchman, entirely dissent. It is remarkable that there is not a single ex-Cabinet Minister present on the Front Opposition Bench. The right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, whose post-prandial utterances have been referred to, reminds me much of the little boy in Punch, who wrote "No Popery" on the wall and promptly ran away. Where is the right hon. Gentleman, and where is the Wesleyan Member for Wolverhampton? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian is not very much of a Protestant, yet he objects to this Mission "as a, very great novelty in British history." That may be the line taken up by the British Weekly, but why the right hon. Gentleman should object to a Mission to the Pope I cannot conceive. I will not condescend to use the tu quoque argument with regard to him. The moral
  580
  Code he draws up was well set forth in the first article of the Times newspaper this morning, and I will only say that, at all events, this Mission was an open one, whilst his Mission to the Pope was in secret. The right hon. Gentleman would make out that it is perfectly legitimate for him tosteal a horse, whilst we may not even buy one in the open market. Why should not England send a Mission to the Pope? We send Missions to the Porte, but we do not therefore become Mahomedans. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian says it was all very well to send a Mission to the Pope when he was a temporal sovereign. He reminds us that the Pope is no longer a temporal prince, and says—
  ''You go as near as you can to making a declaration that the Pope is still a temporal prince—and that he has the right of temporal dominion—Italy and the nationality of Italy must shift for themselves. What an attempt to sow discord."
  He has tried to stir up hatred between Italy and England, because on this one occasion England has sent an open embassy to the Pope—a Mission to which Italy in no way objects. Does he forget that on the occasion of the Pope's sacerdotal jubilee special envoys were accredited to the Pope by other nations, and that they have had Embassies at the Vatican ever since 1870, when he lost his temporal power? Has Italy objected to these diplomatic relations? Did these Missions compel Italy and her nationality to shift for themselves? But why was it necessary to send a Mission to the Pope? It seems to me that the course of the Government is as clear as noonday. There were several changes desired in Malta, and, as hon. Members are aware, there is in that island a Representative Council, consisting of 14 elected Members, and six nominees of the Crown. It is evident that the Government cannot force through that Council any measure unless it has the consent of the majority of the Members. There was a very interesting article by Mr. F. W. Rowsell, in the Nineteenth Century, in August, 1878, describing from an intimate knowledge of the subject the condition of matters in Malta. He said, amongst other things—
  "The ultima ratio of everything is the Church's permission to do or forbear. The

  581
  most instructed and Liberal Maltese, however qualified to exercise the quality of detachment of mind, fails to use this gift, in the presence, or at the bidding of Church Authority."
  It is plain, therefore, that unless you Can secure the influence of the Church you cannot obtain changes in the law through the Elective Council. There is no subject in which the Church of Rome takes such a great interest as that of marriage; and the present law, which is exceedingly doubtful as to the validity of mixed marriages, and as to the validity of Protestant marriages in Malta, cannot be altered without a declaration from the Pope that such an alteration may be made. The Chief Justice of Malta stated that these marriages had received for many years such a degree of recognition as amounted to custom, and were, in his opinion, valid—a nice substratum for such a contract as marriage, on which the happiness of families, the position of wives, and the rights of children depend. The Government wished to make this certain. Surely marriage is a thing about which there should be no question whatever, and, therefore, it was necessary that the law of Malta should be altered. What can be the danger to religion and liberty in going to the Pope and asking him to give an opinion which shall influence the minds of the Representative Council to pass a law to legalise marriages not solemnised in accordance with the Council of Trent? We are told that we have gone to the Pope, cap in hand, to obtain a great concession, and, therefore, have thrown away our religious liberty, but surely we have done the opposite, and have given liberty to Protestants to contract marriages in Malta. Another point on which it was necessary to obtain his view was the education of the people. I understand that they know nothing but Maltese; that very few families can speak 10 sentences in either the Italian or the English language, and that the country priests positively are so ignorant that they were not even aware that they had a Representative Council in the island 20 years after that Council had been constituted. The Maltese, as a matter of fact, have a language which has not even
  582
  been reduced to writing, and has no grammar, no dictionary, and no literature of any kind, and yet the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian denounces the order to teach English in the clerical seminaries as a blow struck at Maltese nationality. I think it is most desirable that those people should learn the English language—the language of the Empire to which they belong. I do not remember the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian ever objecting to Hindoos and Mahomedans being taught the English language. In order to secure these advantages in Malta, the Government have given up the patronage of a few small livings, and endowments belonging to those livings will be applied to the teaching of English in the seminaries. I think that we Protestants have shown more courtesy to the Head of the Roman Catholic Church than the action taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian and some of his Roman Catholic followers in this House. The whole gravamen of the charge made against the Government is that they are giving to the Pope some promised compensation for the part he took last year with regard to Ireland, when by a papal rescript he brought to the minds of his Irish religions subjects the duties imposed upon them by the sixth, eighth, and tenth Commandments. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian tells us that the Pope fulminated a rescript against the Nationalists of Ireland. It was a rescript against boycotting, which the Pope did not describe, however, in language anything like so severe as the language used at another time by the right hon. Gentleman himself. It is the Irish Roman Catholic Members, not we Protestants, who blame the Pope for this excellent rescript in favour of the Ten Commandments, and charge him with having been bribed to do so; and it is the right hon. Gentleman who thus identifies the Irish policy with the breach of those commandments.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary may have been very good from a diplomatic point of view because we have

  583
  learned nothing from it. I claim to be a Protestant to the backbone as much as the last speaker. Having listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with great interest, I defy any plain ordinary man in this House to know what is the meaning of the whole thing. What was the need for sending this Mission at all, and what object was served by Captain Ross's presence? With a number of matters of detail I do not think we need concern ourselves. If the Maltese clergy are as ignorant as has been represented so much the worse for the people under their charge. But I want to know what right have we, who are claiming religious liberty for everybody, to interfere in the question as to whether the Pope approves certain marriages in Malta or not? Why is it not possible to have in Malta, as in other parts of the British Dominions, civil marriages, and if the Roman Catholic population, under the influence of their priests, like to accept the Pope's opinions and directions, let them do so. We have nothing to do with that. The right hon. Gentleman said that none of these mixed marriages could have taken place without misrepresentation, but he did not tell us whose business it was to prevent that misrepresentation. Surely it was not supposed that our soldiers in Malta were to know all about the Council of Trent, and similar matters, and we have not been told who took care to prevent mistakes on their part, which it is now thought fit to call misrepresentation. I think we have been very badly used indeed by the Government in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman has, after all, never told us what is the result of the whole business—what children will be made legitimate and what will not be made legitimate under the new arrangement. Clouds of confusion have been thrown around the whole question. We have not had a clear statement of what has actually been done, or what is going to be done in the future, and I say that the whole thing comes very badly from the Ministers of a Party belonging to a Church which claims to be the bulwark of Protestantism.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockport has expressed his surprise at the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian. Well, I am not surprised, because, of course, the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware that he cannot hope to contend with the criticisms of the hon. Member for Stockport. He knew, no doubt, that the hon. Member had been reading an article in some Review, and that, with the information so obtained, he entertained the intention of coming down to the House to crush and pulverise him. I think the right hon. Gentleman has shown that discretion is the better part of valour, and that he was quite wise to stay away. Now what surprised me was the way in which the hon. Member took the Pope under his protection. I could not understand it at first, but it dawned upon me when I found he regarded him as a brother Pontiff. The hon. Member for Stockport told us that he represented the Low Church Party. I should like to know where he got his mandate from, for I venture to say that nine-tenths of the Low Church Party never heard of the hon. Gentleman in any other capacity except in his legal aspect in connection with the London School Board. We have also had a speech from the Protestant Member for Boston. I want to understand what he is going to do. He said that he told his constituents that he was Protestant first and Tory afterwards, but he has such a horror of the possibility of Nationalism prevailing in Ireland that he is absolutely going to sacrifice his Protestantism in order to support the Government in this matter. What I want to know is, why on earth the Government have got in this mess. Why did they not let the question alone? The only explanation is that it is some sort of fatality which dogs the footsteps, of these gentlemen, and makes them rush into all sorts of absurdities, such as compensation at home and Missions to the Pope abroad. I shall not be certain what really led to the Mission until we have the Papers before us which

  585
  are now promised in regard to the previous Mission of the Duke of Norfolk. If some sort of understanding was then come to in regard to Ireland, then I can perfectly understand that this Mission was nothing but a blind—that it was intended to keep up relations with the Vatican in order that the latter might come to the aid of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to crush out Nationalism in Ireland. What has been the effect of these proceedings? The effect has been that your Mission has positively bastardised a large number of the children of Her Majesty's subjects in Malta. You agreed to bring in a Bill as soon as possible to restore to these persons their civil rights, but you have not done so. The right hon. Gentleman certainly told us that he hoped that it would be brought in some day, but the fact remains that this agreement with the Pope was entered into in January last, and absolutely nothing has been done during the last eight months. I do not understand that any step whatever has been taken by the Government to bring in this Bill, and I hope that out of consideration for these unfortunate children it will be introduced as soon as possible
  MR. T. M. HEALY: We certainly did expect some reply from the right hon. Baronet, but he has made none. He has made a number of charges against me, not one of which has any foundation. He said that I spoke with contempt of Captain Ross, of Bladensburg, and of Sir Lintorn Simmons. Well, I entertain contempt for them. I asked who is Captain Ross, and what the mischief he was doing at Rome, and we have not got any answer to that question. All we are told is that when an honorary officer has acted in our service, he ought to be spoken of in an honourable manner. Now, is Mr. Ross, of Bladensburg, an officer? Is he in full pay? Is he employed by the Government, or is he on half pay? Does he get a share of this £1,280, or is he serving the State for nothing? I want an answer to those points, and yet when
  586
  I demand it I am told that I am speaking with disrespect of him. I rejoin that I feel disrespect for him, and why should I not do so? If Mr. Ross, of Bladensburg, is a Cavalry officer, let him look after his horses. If he is an Artillery officer, let him look after his guns; and if he belongs to the Infantry, let him see to the conduct of his soldiers. But I should like to know what on earth he has to do with Canon Law? We have not got an answer to any of these questions. What right, I want to know, had Captain Ross at this private audience which Sir Lintorn Simmons was granted by the Pope? Why was he not with his regiment? If the Secretary for War were present in his place I should ask him if this man was absent on leave, and for what purpose the leave of absence was granted him. I may respect Captain Ross as a soldier—for I dote on the military—but as a diplomatist I have my own views about him, for I think he made an awful mess of the affair. I want to know, again, what he was doing at Rome? One other matter. You declare by the mouth of Sir Lintorn Simmons that the Pope spoke of the admirable liberty enjoyed by his Church in the Queen's dominions. Yet you say that the Catholics of Ireland must be satisfied with the marriage laws which prevail in that country. Surely what is good enough for the Irish should be good enough for the Maltese, and what is good enough for the Archbishop of Dublin should suffice for the Bishop of Gozo. You have declared that His Holiness is satisfied with the liberty which prevails throughout Her Majesty's dominions. I say that out of your own mouths yon are giving away your own case. In Ireland you do not believe that a Catholic is fit to act as a juror in a criminal case. I should like to know now why there has been this long delay in introducing the project of law which has been promised. Eight months have elapsed since the promise was made. The Maltese Council has been sitting during that period, and now you have adjourned it sine die. By your Act you have created a number of illegitimate children, and the project of law which you promised the Pope last January, in order to relieve them of their disabilities,

  587
  is not yet forthcoming. The hon. Member for Stockport said that a painful state of things was prevailing in this matter. Who is responsible for that? It is yourselves who must be blamed. You have got the Ordinance of 1838. Why have you not enforced it? For 50 years the law has been allowed to remain in abeyance. Why have you not repealed it? If this is really a Government of law and order, why have you allowed it to remain in abeyance? I say we have had no satisfactory explanation from the Government to-night. How long are these unfortunate people to remain illegitimatised? Hon. Members opposite strongly object to this discussion being continued; but I say we will not allow it to close until we are told how soon the unhappy offspring of these people are to have their position regularised. This is a serious thing for them, for it may affect their rights to property.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The project of law, as has been stated elsewhere, has been under the careful consideration of the Government, to whom it was referred by the Government of Malta. A matter of this importance requires careful consideration, in view of the amount of bad blood caused in Malta by misrepresentations of this question.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: That amounts to a declaration that the Maltese do not want the project of law. You begin with a declaration that you are anxious to satisfy the consciences of the Catholic people, and now you tell us that this matter has created so much ill-blood that you dare not propose the Bill in the Council of Malta. That is the declaration of the Government made eight months after they promised to bring in the Bill. These are the words of a Government who profess to be so anxious for the souls of the Maltese people, so anxious to quiet their consciences and to regularise their marriages that they dare not show the people of Malta the cards they have up their sleeves: they dare not let them know what it is they propose for their benefit. You have sown confusion in the minds of the people, and now, after the Mission to the Vatican is over, you dare not produce
  588
  your project of law. This shows strongly the bad faith in which the Mission was undertaken. It was not sent in the interests of the Maltese, but it was sent, as I have said before, with the object of injuring the Nationalists of Ireland.
  DR. TANNER: I happen to be a Protestant, although I am a member of the Nationalist Party, and I want to know if the Government are going to adhere to the terms of their engagement. From what we have learnt this evening I think the action of the Government indisputably unsatisfactory. Every point raised by my hon. Friend has been fenced with and carefully avoided, and we have not had a distinct answer. Knowing the influences brought to bear on the Government hostile to the Catholics in all parts of the globe it is inexplicable to me how the Government came to send this Mission, and I am equally puzzled to understand why we cannot now get a distinct answer to our question. We shall raise this question again on the Colonial Vote, for the Government have hedged and skulked in this Debate. Their shuffling dissimulation—I may not, and am not going to, call it lying—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member cannot avoid the Forms of the House in that way.
  DR. TANNER: Then I will say the dissimulation of the Government in this matter has been so mean and of so pure and transparent a character that I thank goodness they have adopted this plan of showing their miserable and infamous position.
  (12.11.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 62; Noes 109.—(Div. List, No. 244.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I want to put a question as to Arabi Pasha and his friends. The Government have received a Petition accompanied by a medical certificate, stating that the health of these gentlemen and of their ladies and families is bad, and they request that they may be allowed to return to Egypt on giving a pledge to act in entire conformity with the law. In lieu of that permission being

  589
  given they ask to be moved to a place where the climate is more suitable for them. Considering their exemplary conduct during their detention in Ceylon I hope some arrangement will be made whereby their health may not suffer.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: It is true that the climate of Ceylon is unfavourable to the health of these exiles, and the Government have under consideration the question of moving them to a place more suited to their constitutions.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Of course the House will be consulted?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I can assure the hon. Gentleman the Government have every desire to place them where their health will not suffer.
  SIR W. LAWSON: Egypt is now peaceful and contented. What is the objection to letting them return there?
  MR. CONYBEARE: At whose expense are they being kept in Ceylon? Would it not be more economical to send them back to their native land?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: They have an allowance paid to them by the Egyptian Government. We are bound to consult the wishes of that Government in this matter; and if it is of opinion that the events of 1883 are so recent as to render undesirable the return of these gentlemen to Egypt, I think we must abide by its decision.
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: In order to take the sense of the House on the question of Madagascar, I propose to move the reduction of the Vote. I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to only one or two points. In the first place, this is a Naval question, and if the French get, as sooner or later they will, the entire control of all the harbours of the island, it will be a very serious thing for us. Lord Palmerston over and over again declared that the French must not be allowed to get possession of these harbours, and that the utmost they are entitled to is a small island on the north-east coast. Then I
  590
  object to the provision that British Consuls on the island must apply to the French Consul General for their exequatur. Surely they ought to obtain them from the English Consul General. It was a pure oversight that a Division on this question was not taken early in the evening, for it is one of very general interest, as hon. Members will find when they read their papers in the morning.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That Item A (Salaries), be reduced by £50, part of the Salary of the Secretary of State."—(Captain Verney.)
  (12.28.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 102.—(Div. List, No. 245.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  DR. CLARK: There is one point upon which I should like to have a more decided answer from the Under Secretary. There is a good deal of feeling in South Africa just now, and you have an extraordinary condition of things, a vote of censure passed upon Ministers by the Parliament there. I wish to point out the very unsatisfactory character of the answers given by the First Lord of the Treasury and the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. In the beginning of May, when it leaked out that Her Majesty's Government were making an Agreement with Germany, the hon. Member for Huddersfield asked the First Lord if Her Majesty's Government had been in communication with the Government at the Cape, and the right hon. Gentleman answered that there had been such communications. Further, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for West Edinburgh, the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs stated that Her Majesty's Government would place themselves in communication with the Cape Ministry. Now, as a matter of fact, these statements were not accurate. No communications whatever were made to the Cape Ministry, and both the late Ministry there and the present Ministry are very indignant in reference to the matter. When, subsequently, the Under Secretary was again

  591
  asked a question, he replied that the reason why Her Majesty's Government had not been in communication with the Cape Government—and this after we had been told there would be, and that there had been, such communications—was that the Cape Government were not interested in any of the territory with which the Agreement was concerned. As a matter of fact, this is not correct either. As I pointed out, Walfisch Bay belongs to the Cape Government, and there is a special clause in the Convention for the delimitation of that territory. But up to the last moment there had been no communication from Her Majesty's Government to the Cape Government on the subject. Now this is really a very serious matter, and I should like to have a direct answer. When the question of delimitation comes up for decision, will the Cape Government be consulted on the question of delimitation or arbitration?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: There is no question of ceding territory in Walfisch Bay; it is simply a question of the line of demarcation to be drawn. If I recollect rightly, some two or three years ago, when there was a question of sending a Commission there, the Cape Government declined to be a party to it.
  DR. CLARK: They have authority; they have a Magistrate there.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I am quite sure the interests of the Cape Government will be consulted in the matter, but I am not entitled to give any specific pledge as to the manner.
  MR. CONYBEARE: In connection with the territory around Walfisch Bay, I should ask whether the Government will take care to have the German Hinterland doctrine properly respected?
  MR. SUMMERS: When I put the question to the First Lord, whether any communications had passed between the Government, the High Commissioner, and the Cape Government, in reference to the Anglo-German Agreement, the right hon. Gentleman replied that various communications had taken place between
  592
  the Home Government and the Government of the Cape Colony, but they were of a confidential character, the effect of which it was not desirable to state while negotiations were going on. Subsequently, however, the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated that no communications had passed between the Home Government and the Government at the Cape. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any explanation in reference to this discrepancy?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not able to add anything to the statement I made on that occasion. I said that communications had passed between the Home Government and the High Commissioner. I did not intend to state that they were communications between the Home Government and the Cape Government.
  MR. SUMMERS: The right hon. Gentleman said there were some communications with the Cape Government of a confidential character, the effect of which it was undesirable to state. Can the right hon. Gentleman now tell us what was the nature of those communications?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No, Sir, I cannot.
  DR. CLARK: This reply is very unsatisfactory. The Government will not keep the loyalty of a self-governing colony if they treat a Colonial Government in this fashion. I think you might consider their susceptibilities in a matter affecting their own territory. You might at least ask them, as a matter of courtesy, to take part in the delimitation. I beg to move a reduction of £20 in the salary of the Under Secretary, in order to protest against the answer he has given.
  (12.46.) Motion made, and Question, "That Item A (Salaries), be reduced by £20, part of the Salary of the Under Secretary of State,"—(Dr. Clark,)—put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  2. £27,193, for House of Lords Offices.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I want on this Vote to ask

  593
  the Attorney General whether he can give any explanation as to what has been done, if anything, by the Lord Chancellor with reference to the Justices of the Peace, whose conduct was criticised in the interim Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the affairs of the Macclesfield Trustee Savings Bank? Several persons were implicated, but I will take only one as an illustration. A Justice of the Peace, named Eaton, was specially reported on as having by his conduct contributed to the frauds. It is said that he constantly absented himself from the Bank during business hours; that he made no arrangements to supply his place, or to secure any check on the two clerks who remained; that the alterations in the ledger were reported to him, and he took no action to discover or punish the offender; that erasures made in the books of the bank were reported to him, but he took no action respecting them; that he actually made erasures in the books of the Bank himself, and that in order to make the books square he posted an amount from a book called the dirty book. Of this last proceeding the Inspector said that the posting of the sum was deliberately dishonest. On one other point I have a question to ask. Perhaps the Attorney General will be able to give us some assurance that some new policy will be pursued in reference to the Bills for naturalisation, as I find that the matter really rests with the Lord Chancellor, who signifies the Queen's consent, without which the Bill cannot proceed.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: The hon. Member was so courteous as to inform me he was going to raise the question of the Macclesfield Savings Bank. I have communicated with the Lord Chancellor, and he desires me to state that he has most carefully considered the whole question and personally examined the evidence. He does not take the view that the findings of the learned Commissioner were altogether justified by the evidence. He does not think he would himself have taken so stong a view as the learned Commissioner did in respect of some of the findings. He
  594
  desires me to say there was evidence of carelessness and neglect on the part of both Mr. Eaton and Mr. Stringer, one of the other Magistrates referred to. There was, however, nothing to show that Eaton had obtained any money by virtue of his careless management, although no doubt his conduct was such as ought not to have been pursued. After careful consideration the Lord Chancellor did not feel justified in taking the extreme step of removing the names of either Eaton or Stringer from the Commission of the Peace. With regard to the question of the Naturalisation Bills, I think there have been seven or eight in the course of the last four or five years. I do not wish to express any opinion on them, but I think it right to say it seems to me that the mere question of convenience ought certainly not to be sufficient to sanction Private Naturalisation Bills where there is no special object to be gained. The matter, no doubt, will be further considered by the Lord Chancellor, and I think it probable that some more stringent rule will be laid down.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: With reference to the question of naturalisation, nothing could be more satisfactory than the hon. and learned Gentleman's answer. I feel some difficulty, however, in accepting the explanation with reference to the two Justices of the Peace connected with the Macclesfield Savings Bank. I am really a little puzzled to understand how the Lord Chancellor can have come to the opinion that the Report was too strong. Bearing in mind the evidence as to posting the balance from the dirty book in order to make the accounts tally, so as to deceive the auditors, and remembering that this is proved by the testimony of unimpeachable witnesses, and by the admission of Mr. Eaton himself, and that the Commissioner says the posting of the item was deliberately dishonest, I cannot understand how a gentleman of this kind can have been left on the Commission of the Peace. Mr. Eaton admitted that he was personally aware of the erasures which were made in the books by the persons who stole the money. I cannot

  595
  understand how the Lord Chancellor can have passed that over. There were alterations in the books, and this Magistrate made an illegal deposit himself and made the books balance. The Commissioner who held the inquiry made eight or nine distinct allegations against Mr. Eaton. How this can be passed over I cannot understand. I will not at this period of the Session bring about a long discussion on it, but I give the right hon. Gentleman notice that next year I will raise the question, as I consider it a disgrace to the Bench that this gentleman should continue to sit upon it.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: In consequence of the observations the hon. Member has made I wish to say that the Lord Chancellor was not satisfied with some of the questions which the Commissioners put to the witnesses.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: A Commissioner charged with the duty of investigating Savings Banks frauds acts not as if he were a Judge on a trial in a case in which a person accused of an offence must have the facts brought against him proved by strict evidence. He acts simply as a Commissioner, his object being to find out the truth. I am not asking that Mr. Eaton should be indicted, but I say that having made this statement it is evident that he is not a fit person to be on the Bench.
  MR. CONYBEARE: The explanation of the hon and learned Gentleman the Attorney General is of the lamest description. It amounts to this, that these answers implicating this Magistrate are not to be relied upon as evidence against him, owing to improper questions having been put by the Commissioner delegated to investigate the matter. The object of the inquiry was to ascertain who was guilty of fraud, and if the Commissioner used the means best calculated to discover the perpetrators of the frauds he is not to be blamed because he was a little more zealous than he was expected to be, and did not spare those in high places who were the most guilty. The case seems to me to resolve itself into a simple dilemma. Here you have a gentleman entrusted
  596
  with the most solemn duties, who is apparently implicated in a fraudulent transaction. The only alternative to dishonesty is abject folly, and I would put it to the learned Attorney General, Is it desirable to have either knaves or fools on the Bench? Either these men were knaves or they were not. If they were, and after what I have heard I strongly suspect this to be the case, they are unfit to administer justice on the Bench. If they were not, then they were fools, and I ask, are we at this time of day to be content with having justice administered on the Bench by men who, if they are not knaves, are fools? If you keep men of this kind on the Bench how can you expect their decisions to be respected? I strongly suspect that if these cases were thoroughly sifted, it would be found that the Lord Chancellor's leniency is owing to the fact that these gentlemen are Tories. ["Oh, oh!"] It is all very well for the Attorney General to say "Oh, oh" and "impossible," but we know the record of the Lord Chancellor, and I should not be surprised to find that these gentlemen were Tories of the deepest hue. At any rate, it is a proof of the incompetency of the Lord Chancellor that he has not removed these gentlemen.
  DR. TANNER: There are two or three points which require explanation before the Vote is passed. I always rejoice to see economies practised by a Tory Administration; but I find that instead of beginning at the top of the tree, and cutting off exaggerated salaries, Her Majesty's Government commence at the lower end of the list. I should like to ask how it comes to pass that whilst there is no reduction made in the salary of the Lord Chancellor, who receives £4,000 a year for sitting in the Upper House for a short time four days a week, there is a reduction in the amount paid to housemaids, whose salaries are only 10s. a week? How is it that the item for this class of servants is only £299, whereas it was £433 last year? Does not the House of Lords require cleaning? I think it does, with plenty of soap and water, and plenty of strong alkali powerfully applied. Then, again, in the case of messengers, whose salaries

  597
  range from £70 to £170 a year, I find that the amount of the Vote has been cut down, although the number of these men is still the same, namely seven. Why do the Government strike at these people, and leave all the higher salaries alone? They pose as economists, and all the time they are trying to put more weight on the poor in their employ. I find here a Receiver of Parliamentary Office Fees, and the salary attached to the office £600. How is that? Last year the amount was only £350. What is the meaning of the increase? I think it is our duty to look into these matters [Cries of ''Divide!"] I am trying to save time if hon. Members were not too dense to see it. I desire to deal with a number of items at once so as to avoid the necessity of rising several times. I find that the Examiner of Standing Orders receives £964 this year, whereas he only received £900 last year. I think if the Government wished to satisfy the minds of the people who look into these items they could do so by explaining all these points in marginal notes. [Cries of" Divide!"] The Attorney General should remember that I come from Ireland, and that intimidation is against the Coercion Law.
  COLONEL SANDYS: I rise to order, and wish to ask you, Mr. Courtney, whether the hon. Member is not trifling with the House?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am bound to say that although the hon. Member seems to wish to give the impression that he has studied these Estimates he does not appear to have brought a very keen intelligence to bear upon them. He referred to the Accountant as having had his salary increased, but he omitted to note that the office of Assistant Accountant has been abolished and that though the Accountant has had his salary increased the expenditure is less than it was originally on the two officials.
  DR. TANNER: I always receive what comes from you, Sir, with the utmost and deepest respect.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  DR. TANNER: I have made a mistake as to the Accountant, but as to the
  598
  messengers and the Examiner of Standing Orders, perhaps we may have some explanation.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I happen to know in reference to the messengers that one of them having died a junior was appointed. As to the examiner, I believe the increase is the ordinary increase. As to the other matter, I know nothing about it.
  DR. TANNER: And in the absence of knowledge we are to pass the Vote. Next year, should the present Chancellor of the Exchequer be in office, as I hope he may not be, nor have I reason to expect it, I hope these matters will be dealt with in a more satisfactory manner.
  Vote agreed to.
  3. Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £34,523, 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 in the Offices of the House of Commons."
  DR. CLARK: I should like to know how long we are to continue? Is it not the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to move for the appointment of the Committee on the financial relations of the three Kingdoms? I move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Dr. Clark.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's,: I trust the Committee will agree to continue for a little time longer. As compared with our former habits we have not reached a very advanced hour, and I do not think these Votes we are now approaching are of a contentious character.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Upon the Home Office Vote I understand hon. Members desire to raise some points of interest. This Vote, I think, might be taken.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I hope we may be permitted to go on with this Vote. There are one or two points I

  599
  desire to mention, but they will not, I think, raise a long discussion. Upon the Home Office Vote, however, important questions as to mining inspection will arise.
  MR. SEXTON: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer intend to move the appointment of the Financial Relations Committee to-night?
  MR. GOSCHEN: No.
  MR. SEXTON: Then may I ask why not? This Motion has been standing for some weeks. Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the importance of the Committee having one meeting in order to arrange the method of their proceedings and to give directions to officials to prepare the necessary statements? If not to-night, when is it the intention to move for the Committee?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I can only repeat what I have all along said, that I am very anxious for the appointment of the Committee, and I would ask the hon. Member to assist us by helping forward the Estimates. The Estimates are of pressing importance, and if we cannot induce the Committe to sit late to proceed with these I do not think I can ask the House to sit for other business. I hope we may take the Motion for the Committee to-morrow, but I cannot pledge myself until we make further progress with Supply.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman consent to the postponement of the Home Office Vote?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Yes; we postpone that, and ask the Committee to make progress with other Votes.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I think the Government are under a pledge to take the Votes in order, and not to dodge up and down. I hope that engagement will be adhered to.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Surely the Committee is free to postpone a Vote when it appears for the general interest to do so?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The Committee is impatient with my hon. Friend. For my part, I hope we shall take the House of Commons Vote to-night. But, Sir,
  600
  there are bores on the other side of the House. We have been subject to interruptions to-night from the Members on the other side, and I give the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Fowler) fair notice that if he proceeds with his intention to raise the question of House of Commons salaries, I shall move that the Question be now put.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  SIR R. FOWLER: I have given notice of my intention upon this Vote to call attention to the inadequate salaries paid to the officers of the House.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY(1.24.) Mr. T. M. HEALY 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.
  SIR R. FOWLER: It will be in the recollection of the House that I put a question to the Leader of the House asking him whether Her Majesty's Government, in view of the increased length of the sittings of the House, a proposal for the increase of the salaries of officials would be considered. I again urge the point, and certainly think that the time has come when, considering how the business of the House has increased, and the probability of the length of Sessions being considerably increased in future, the House might deal in a more generous spirit with its servants. I hope we may have a promise that between this and the next preparation of Estimates this subject will be considered.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: I venture to say, in reply, that there are two ways in which the services of the officers of the House may receive consideration; one is by increasing their salaries, and the other is by shortening their hours of work. I trust that hon. Members will make a beginning in the latter direction.
  MR. SEXTON: The officers of the House have been very unfortunate in their advocate. The hon. Baronet who has been the cause of

  601
  much interruption this evening must not assume from his reception that the officers of the House have not the full sympathy of Members in this part of the House.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I have a question or two to ask, which will, I think, excite opposition from hon. Gentlemen opposite. It has, I know, been matter of frequent complaint that we have not in our Library copies of the Law Reports and judgments in the Law Courts. Occasionally I have in the course of Debate desired to make reference to a judgment, and I am told that it is necessary to go to the Library of the House of Lords for Law Reports. Now, I believe the Library appertaining to that august assembly is not at all times available while we are sitting, but in any case it is highly inconvenient that a Member who desires to make a reference to a judgment should be obliged to go round to the House of Lords for the purpose. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if some arrangement could be made for placing in our own Library copies of the Reports, say from the commencement of the new series, 1865. I do not ask for the more ancient ones. Also I may mention that the Library is insufficiently supplied with legal textbooks on the different branches of the law; those we have are old editions. Then I have to mention the absurd red tape rules that control the police arrangements, that prevent the introduction of a stranger by the Members' entrance. I am not complaining of this as a rule of general application, but in such a case as this. A lady and her husband having been taking tea on the terrace, I desired to show them St. Stephen's Chapel, but I was informed by the policeman that though I was at liberty to introduce the lady, her husband could not be admitted by that entrance. Now, absurd restrictions of this kind are very irritating, and make us ridiculous in the eyes of strangers, and I would suggest that a certain amount of discretion should be allowed to the police. Another small point I desire to mention, and that is whether the convenience of officers of the House is consulted by
  602
  payment of these salaries monthly instead of quarterly.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: A few months ago a letter appeared in the Times stating that the detectives employed in the House kept a record of the movements of Members within the precincts of the building. That is a most objectionable practice, and I should like to know whether it is continued, and, if so, why? I also wish to know whether the cleaners of the House cannot be paid directly instead of through third parties?
  DR. TANNER: A sum of £1,000 is set down as payments to waiters in the Refreshment Department. Is this sum paid directly or through the Kitchen Committee? I do not wish to raise a Debate on the subject, but I think I should have a considerable amount of support from Members on either side if I proceeded to maintain my opinion that the administration of this Department could not well be worse than it is. To mention one item, which may appear too insignificant to raise now, the only vegetable we are often able to obtain is a spring cabbage of the most nauseous character. No explanation can account for the fact that, with this £1,000, and the expenses provided, the Refreshment department in this House is simply disgraceful.
  MR. JACKSON: I will inquire into the question of whether copies, of Law Reports can be furnished to the Library. As to the rules which regulate the admission of strangers through the Members' entrance, these do not come within my direction; it is a matter of police arrangement, and instructions are given by the Sergeant-at-Arms. The question raised by the hon. Member for Northampton with regard to detectives, would come on more properly on the Home Office Vote. As to the question of the employment of cleaners a Departmental Committee is now considering whether a plan can be formulated changing the practice which has hitherto prevailed of having the work done by

  603
  contract. The item of £1,000 mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid Cork goes to the Kitchen Committee to meet what would otherwise be a deficiency in their accounts.
  DR. TANNER: To spend as they like?
  MR. JACKSON: To spend it as they find necessary. For my own part, I think the Kitchen Committee deserve thanks for their services, and for the great improvements which have been effected in the dining arrangements.
  DR. TANNER: I am afraid I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I know there are many Conservative Members who share my opinion that the dining arrangements of the House are worse than are to be found in any third-class restaurant in the City.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: In reference to the admission of strangers, I thought the right hon. Gentleman said this is a mere matter of police arrangement, as though he had nothing to do with this question. Is this an improper time to raise the point?
  MR. JACKSON: Not at all. I shall be happy to consider any representations hon. Members may make, and submit them to the proper quarter.
  MR. CONYBEARE: We cannot call the Sergeant-at-Arms to the Bar, so perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will convey our wishes. All that is required is a certain discretion and elasticity in the application of the rules. It is an abominable nuisance when you are proceeding from one part of the building to another with a friend, to be stopped and told you must not go this way or that way.
  MR. WEBB: I wish to call attention to only one point. I desire to protest against the duty imposed on the Chaplain to back out of the House after he has said prayers. It is dishonouring to the House. Why should he not be allowed to retire behind the Speaker's Chair?
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I desire to say a few words with regard to the Kitchen Committee. I do not agree
  604
  with many of the animadversions of my hon. Friend as to the distribution of the £1,000 voted to the Committee; but I go with him entirely in his criticism of the manner in which Members of this House are supplied with the refreshments necessary in order to enable them to perform their duties properly. There is, in connection with the catering, no rent or licences to pay, no interest to meet on capital invested in furniture or glass, no charge for gas or firing, and yet Members of this House are obliged to pay as much for their food and drink as is charged in any restaurant outside the House. With my short experience of the working of the Kitchen Committee I have no wish to impute any blame to them for mis-management. I know I may be told in reply that the explanation of the high prices charged is that service is required for only a short time of the day, and that very often losses are incurred by reason of the fact that, in consequence of one of those unaccountable changes in the business of the House, Members get away before the usual dining hour, and the meals are not required. But I do intend to submit to the Committee a plan of reform. In the first place, I believe that the Members of the House should get their food at first cost, and that the service should be paid for out of the National Exchequer. I see no difference between the man who hands me the card of a visitor and the man who hands me my plate at dinner—they are both engaged in the service of the House, and the cost ought to be defrayed in the manner I have suggested. I believe that that is a proposition which will find support in all parts of the House. If I am defeated on that plan, however, I have to suggest another. It is, I believe, a wrong policy that one class of article alone should bear nearly the whole cost of the service. It is a fact that nearly the whole cost is placed on the drinks consumed in the House. I do not see the justice of compelling me, because I take a small bottle of wine to my dinner, to pay a high price so that the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who only drinks water, shall have his plate of meat for almost nothing. Some hon. Members may be sufficiently flush of

  605
  cash, to be able to afford to pay for the dinners of other people, but I speak on behalf of a continually growing body of men in this House, who are, for better or for worse, taking the place of those who have plenty of money. It is a matter of some consequence to working men Members that they shall get good dinners cheap, and that the profits charged on the articles supplied to them should be fairly apportioned all round. On some of the wines there is a profit of 50 or 60 per cent. charged. Now, I live in this House six or seven months every year—
  COLONEL SANDYS: I rise to order. Is not the hon. Member trifling with the time of the House?
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: The Chairman is the best judge whether I am trifling with the House or not; he is also the best judge whether I have ever done so. I hold this is a serious matter, and one which ought to occupy the attention of the Committee. I intend to investigate the whole question, and if I am still a Member, I will next year lay the result of my inquiries before the Kitchen Committee, and submit my proposals to them.
  MR. J. R. KELLY: I regret that the Secretary to the Treasury did not think it worth while to give a serious answer to the remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. I wish him to bear in mind that when the salaries were fixed, 50 years ago, the amount was probably adequate, but times have since changed, the cost of living has increased, and the sum paid as wages is insufficient. Why, there are some officials in this House who only get 20s. a week. Surely the right hon. Gentleman could follow the example set in the House of Lords, and, at any rate, he might consider the propriety of granting an inquiry into the subject of the salaries paid to the House of Commons officials?
  MR. CONYBEARE: I, too, should like to press on the Government the desirability of taking into consideration what has been urged by two of their own supporters on behalf of the officials of this House. No one could
  606
  praise them too highly for the zealous way in which they discharge their duties. They have to commence before hon. Members arrive, and they do not leave until all Members have departed, so their hours are very long. Considering that there has been no inquiry into the subject of their pay for so many years, I think it is only fair that the Government should give the matter careful consideration. If the right hon. Gentleman does not give us a pledge that an inquiry shall be held, I will, at the earliest opportunity next Session, take the matter up.
  MR. JACKSON: I am sorry if hon. Members think I did not treat this matter seriously. I thought the House desired to get on with its business. So far as I know, no complaint has been made to me on this subject.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Complaint has been made to me.
  MR. JACKSON: I will inquire from those whose duty it is to look into these matters whether there is any reason for making alteration. I may add that whenever a vacancy occurs, there is always consideration given to the question of the salary of the officer to be appointed.
  MR. KELLY: But why not grant such, an inquiry as was held in the case of the House of Lords officials? That inquiry resulted in the framing of a scheme which will save a sum of about £7,000 a year.
  MR. JACKSON: I can only repeat I will look into this matter.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  4. £60,122 for Treasury and Subordinate Department.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I have to draw attention to a matter which I have already brought under the notice of the Government by means of a question. It will be in the recollection of the Committee that in the month of March last the Chancellor of the Exchequer undertook what I fear will be a trouble some inquiry in connection with the Customs Department. I understood him to say that the men who gave information

  607
  would not be sufferers by reason of any statement they made. But two gentlemen, Mr. Smith and Mr. Heath, have been fined £20 a year, and an equivalent of £20 by the suspension of their salaries, for having made a personal communication to the Private Secretary of the right hon. Gentleman. That is not, I fear, the only case, for I have reason to believe that some of the Customs officers at Gravesend, for having sought to make representation on behalf of their fellow officers, have, by way of punishment, been transferred elsewhere, I am, of course, only speaking on the information which has reached me, and it may be inaccurate in this latter case, but there can be no doubt that I am correctly stating the facts as affecting Mr. Smith and Mr. Heath, although, of course, there may be a difference of opinion as to the reasons for the course pursued. I think it would be most unfortunate if the feeling should spread that the men giving evidence at the inquiry granted by the right hon. Gentlenan will suffer for their action. I can quite understand the Treasury objecting to pressure being brought upon it in these matters by Members of this House, but when the complaints are made direct by the officers to the head of the Department, the inquiry should at any rate be completed before any one is made to suffer.
  MR. GOSCHEN: With regard to the case of the Gravesend officers I certainly have not heard of any of them having been transferred to other districts under the circumstances suggested, nor do I believe it possible. I am now holding the inquiry referred to, and I admit it takes a long time, because I have to hear what is to be said by representatives from the outposts of London, Liverpool, Dublin, and Belfast. I have seen these officials without any of the superior officers of the Customs being present, and so as to secure that their whole case is laid before me. The Board of Customs have not seen the evidence, and I, therefore, feel it is impossible they can have been made to suffer for their action. I am determined that the men selected to put forward the case of the Customs officers shall not suffer in the
  608
  slightest degree. With regard to the case of Messrs. Smith and Heath, they came down to the Treasury on a matter entirely unconnected with my inquiry. They appeared to have been making a round of calls on Cabinet Ministers to protest against a particular appointment, and they used language utterly subversive of all discipline. I do not wish to aggravate their case by making further public comments, but I can assure the hon. Member if such conduct were allowed, then we must say good-bye to all discipline. I must say I do not think the punishment inflicted on them was in any way severe.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Then the cases of Smith and Heath does not come within the category of those who wished to make statements in reference to the inquiry.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Not at all; otherwise they would not have been punished. I am absolutely clear on that point.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I wish to raise a question about military contributions to the Colonies—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member cannot raise that on the Estimates. He can only raise that on a Motion before the House.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Cannot I raise the question of the contribution of the Exchequer to the Colonies?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Not in Supply.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Then I wish to say a few words against the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in putting the English emblem of St. George and the Dragon on the sovereign.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That must be raised on the Vote for the Mint.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: But the Chancellor of the Exchequer influences this action.
  THE CHAIRMAN: No doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer influences many Departments, but questions specially affecting the administration of a particular Department must be raised on the Estimates affecting that Department.
  Vote agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported.
  MR. GOSCHEN: We propose now to withdraw the Home Office and Colonial Vote, and proceed with the Privy Council Vote.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £10,707, 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 Department of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council and for Quarantine Expenses."
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I protest. We had a distinct assurance that the Votes should be taken in their order. I, therefore, beg to move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir George Campbell.)
  MR. GOSCHEN: We will not enter, into a prolonged contest, but surely a few Votes which are not really contentious might be taken. There are five or six in that category.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I am as anxious to get on with these Votes as the right hon. Gentleman, but there are questions connected with the Privy Council which must be discussed.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Then proceed with them.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I am not prepared to do that to-night. I think it very hard that Votes should be taken out of their order, at time of the night when hon. Members could not have expected them to come on. I would suggest the list of Votes should be read out, and it could then be ascertained which are non-contentious.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Who are to say what are contested or non-contested Votes? There may be Votes on which I may desire to say nothing, but on which other hon. Members may desire to say a good deal.
  MR. GOSCHEN: We had hoped to get much further with the Votes than we have done up to the present moment, and I trust that, after the time that has already been
  610
  consumed in discussion, the House will permit these Votes to pass through the Committee to-night. I would, therefore, urgently appeal to hon. Members opposite to allow, at all events, some additional Votes to be taken. We should be glad to hear from hon. Members opposite which of the Votes they desire to discuss.
  MR. LABOUCHEREThere are a number of Votes still to be taken, some of which may be contentious and some not; and, as to those which are non-contentious, they might just as well be taken to-morrow as at this hour of the night. I presume the right hon. Gentleman will say that the Board of Agriculture Vote is not contentious, but, for certain reasons, I will suggest there is a painful necessity arising for moving that the salary of the President of the Board of Agriculture, who is not present at this moment, be reduced.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,: I beg pardon, the President of the Board of Agriculture is here.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Then I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. But certainly I shall feel under the necessity of taking a Division on the salary of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Member asks what is a non-contentious Vote. I should say it is a Vote that has not the elements of contention in it.
  DR. TANNER: I cannot understand the method of the madness of Her Majesty's Government. If the remaining Votes are non-contentious there would be as little time lost in bringing them up to-morrow as in taking them to-night. But if the Government keep on in this ding-dong way, trying to pass Votes out of their order, they naturally exasperate the Committee, and will find hon. Members, like myself, getting up to speak on matters which, if the Votes were postponed till to-morrow, they might not be inclined to say a word about. If the Government desire the despatch of business, why do they not take it in a sensible way?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I might point out that, as far as I can see, there are some Votes that are contentious and about nine that are not. For instance, there is the Board of Trade and Subordinates Departments Vote. That, I assume, is non-contentious. [Several hon. MEMBERS: "No, no."] There is the Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade. That, I suppose, is non-contentious. Then there is the Charity Commission. [An hon. MEMBER: That is contentious.] Then the Civil Service Commission and the Exchequer and Audit Department—
  MR. KELLY: I have to raise a question on that.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Then there is the Friendly Societies Registration Vote—
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Surely, Mr. Courtney, we are wasting time in going into these matters.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I would once more appeal to hon. Members to allow business to proceed.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to continue this sort of squabble, which may waste another half-hour of our time.
  MR. GOSCHEN: We should certainly like to make a little more progress in some of these Votes, but if hon. Members can come to no agreement and will allow us to make no further progress I suppose we must of necessity, at this hour of the night, allow the Motion to report Progress to be carried.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported to-morrow; Committee also report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION (No. 2) (RE COMMITTED) BILL [LORDS.]—(No. 405.)
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Schedule.
  Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 29, to leave out from the word "shipment,"
  612
  to the word "an," in line 32.—(Mr. Solicitor General.)
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  BILLS OF SALE BILL [LORDS]. (No. 384.)
  As amended, considered; Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  SUPPLY [8TH AUGUST]—REPORT.
  Order read, for resuming the Consideration of Postponed Resolution,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,366,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals and the In-Pensioners thereof, of Out-Pensions, of the Maintenance of Lunatics for whom Pensions are not drawn, and of Gratuities awarded in Commutation and in lieu of Pensions, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891."
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: This Resolution was postponed, at my request, in order that I might bring forward certain complaints made by veteran soldiers of Her Majesty's Army, who have served in the Crimean War and the Indian Mutiny, and who are either without pensions, or are receiving only inadequate pensions. In many Scotch towns there are veterans who have served in these wars, and at large public meetings in Dundee, Aberdeen, and other great towns, presided over by the Chief Magistrates, resolutions have been passed calling attention to the hardships undergone by those deserving soldiers, who are either unpensioned or drawing very meagre pensions. I have a list of 16 cases connected with the Dundee district, and verified by the Commanding Officer of that district. One is that of a man now 61 years of age, and unable to work, who served in the Crimean war and received the Crimean medal, since which he has been an Instructor of Rifle Volunteers; he receives no pension. There is another veteran, who served 13 years, and is 67 years of age, unfit to work, and who has received the Crimean and the Lucknow medals. He has no pension. There are other cases in which men, all of about the ages just given,

  613
  who have rendered distinguished service, are either without pensions, or receiving pensions of not more than 4d. to 8d. and 10d. a day. One soldier, now 63 years old, who served 17 years, and was wounded at the Battle of the Alma, and is now unable to work, receives no pension. He is said to have been a splendid soldier in the field, but in his early service he happened to have deserted, a fact which, doubtless, is the cause of his having no pension. It may be possible that some of the other cases may be similarly explained, and I am not complaining of injustice in the matter; but I think the cases I cite deserve compassionate consideration, and I put them ad misericordiam. I think it is not asking too much that the Secretary for War should consider the desirability of even going beyond the law in order to recognise by some compassionate allowance the services of these men. I would point out that in another matter, affecting Scotland, Parliament has gone beyond the contract made with a particular class of servants. It has given the police over and above what they are entitled to, a prospective allowance, which is worth an additional 6s. a week. I only ask the Government to treat our soldiers in the same generous spirit. I think it wise policy to do this. I cannot imagine anything more likely to prove attractive to men desirous of entering the Army than such a proceeding. I do not ask for any specific declaration of general policy at the present moment; but I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman for some consideration of this important question.
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: Having myself served in the Crimean War and the Indian Mutiny, I may say that I constantly have appeals made to me such as those referred to by my hon. Friend. If anything be done for the Army I trust the Navy will receive the same consideration. And I would point out that, although the pensions awarded in those days may have been suitable for the times, circumstances have materially changed since then, as will be seen when we remember the great advances in the prices of food, clothing, and house rent that has since been made. I should be
  614
  glad if the Government can see their way to deal with this matter in a liberal spirit, as I am sure that, by doing so, they will give great satisfaction to the country, and help to popularise its two chief Services.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,: There is no doubt that, owing to what occurred the other day in reference to those who have survived the Balaclava charge, a great deal of public sympathy has been evoked for soldiers who have served their country in the wars referred to. But I would point out that every man who has been in the Army is not necessarily entitled to a pension, and it is utterly impossible to entertain such a proposal for a moment. Men who have not earned a pension ought not to receive one. There may, of course, be a few cases which are on the border lines that may fairly be considered, but it would be ruinous to entertain the proposition that because a man had served a few months in the Crimean War, or the Indian Mutiny, he should therefore be pensioned. It should be remembered that at the present moment we are paying something like 80,000 pensions to those who have really earned them by good service.
  Resolution agreed to.

  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Resolutions [9th August] reported and agreed to. (See pages 367 to 425.)

  BANKRUPTCY BILL.—(No. 414.)
  Order read for the consideration of Lords' Amendments.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It is a strong order to take these Amendments now, seeing that none of them are on the Paper, and commercial Members have had no notice of what is going to be done.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: The Amendments have been circulated.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I withdraw my objection.
  DR. TANNER: The Amendments were only circulated this morning.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I have taken pains to ascertain what is the wish of the House, and there is no difference of opinion on the matter; indeed, the course I am taking is with a view to meet the desire of others rather than myself.
  Lords Amendment considered; Several agreed to; One disagreed to.
  Committee appointed "To draw up Reasons to be consigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of the Amendments."—To withdraw immediately.
  Ordered, that Three be the quorum.

  NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1888–9.
  Resolutions (see page 441), reported, and agreed to.
POSTPONEMENT OF MOTION.

  EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (IRE LAND) RAINEY SCHOOL.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I have a Notice on the Paper to move—
  "That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to withhold Her consent from that part of the scheme of the Educational Endowment (Ireland) Commissioners for the administration of the endowment in the town of Magherafelt, known as the Rainey School, in so far as the proposed composition of the Board of Governors is concerned."
  The Act of 1885 says that a scheme must be on the Table 60 days, and I should, therefore, like to ask whether it will be in order for me to move the Motion next Session, as the scheme cannot this Session be on the Table 60 days.
  MR. SPEAKER: The 60 days will begin with the commencement of next Session.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Then I will postpone the Motion till next Session.

  TEACHERS' ORGANISATION AND REGISTRATION BILL.—(No. 178.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  SHERIFF COURT (SCOTLAND) EXTRACTS BILL.—(No. 25.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  SCHOOL BOARD FOR LONDON (SUPER ANUATIONS) BILL.—(No. 84.)
  Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [17th February] read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  DRAINAGE SEPARATION BILL. (No. 85.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL.
  Resolved, "That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital for the year 1890–91, presented to Parliament pursuant to Act 48 and 49 Vic. c. 42, be approved."—(Mr. Athmead-Bartlett.)

  COAL (PRICE OF.)
  Return ordered—
  "Showing the Annual Average Price per Ton (exclusive of City or other Dues) of the best Coals at the ship's side in the port of London in the several years from 1881 to 1889, both inclusive (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 225, of Session 1881.)"—(Mr. Talbot.)

  BANKRUPTCY BILL.—(No. 414.)
  Reason for disagreeing to one of the Amendments made by the Lords to which this House has disagreed, reported, and agreed to.—To be communicated to the Lords.
  It being after One o'clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  House adjourned at Three o'clock.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: The Amendment which I wish to move will have the effect of restoring the Bill to the form in which it was originally put forward by the London County Council, and as it was passed by the House of Commons in regard to that part of the Bill which proposes that the maximum height of houses should be 70 feet and one storey in the roof. The Select Committee have increased that height to 90 feet and two storeys in the roof. That will be the height allowed if the Bill, as altered by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House, is permitted to stand. That is an addition of 35 feet, for with the additional storey it will raise the height of buildings to 105 feet or more, and there is also an allowance for architectural adornments. There is the less reason for giving this general permission to build houses upwards of 100 feet high, since another provision, which is a very good one, has been added by the Select Committee, which allows of new houses being built up to the height of existing houses in streets such as Victoria Street, Westminster, where there are several gaps still remaining in the buildings along the street. The clause, moreover, allows a greater height where the consent of the County Council has been obtained. The Bill also provides a very good tribunal in the shape of surveyors and architects. In all new streets which are constantly being made in the outskirts of London the sanitary scale of the height of houses not exceeding the width of the street is already made obligatory by statute, but considerable doubts have been expressed whether this power possessed by the County Council might not over-ride the Statute, and permit houses of a height of over 100 feet even in new streets. No provision has been made for narrow streets existing in London, such as may be found at the back of
  450
  Victoria Street, where houses of great height would be excessively prejudicial to health, and would shut out both light and air from the neighbouring houses. Even buildings 70 feet high will do that in narrow streets, but to allow houses to be built to a height of over 100 feet would be far worse. The additional storey in the roof, that is the two storeys instead of one granted by the Select Committee, would add to the un-healthiness of these houses, and also to the danger from fire. Your Lordships are, no doubt, aware in regard to the unhealthiness of these houses, that from the character of the outer walls they are like ovens in summer and very cold in winter, but that point was not gone into. Neither did the Select Committee take any evidence as to the danger from fire and the means of meeting that danger. If they had done so, I believe they would have been told that it was proposed to place cisterns in the roofs of these houses accompanied by hydrants, which it is supposed might be easily set to work; but whether such appliances will be effective or not depends upon having persons at hand who would understand how to use the hydrants, and having sufficient presence of mind to use them. Houses of this size would also require to be provided with other means of meeting danger; such precautions as balconies passing from one part of the building to the other, and fire-proof galleries inside. The excuse given for asking for this increased height of 30 feet or more is the cost of the ground in certain parts of London, but it would be very inconsistent to make sacrifices to procure open spaces to provide air in the Metropolis, and at the same time to impede light and air by such monstrous buildings, excluding the access of any light and air except perpendicularly. This enormous height is not required for artisans' dwellings. Artisans' dwellings could not without too much increase of rent be provided with lifts and persons to work them. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who have a large amount of property in London, who are very competent judges on the subject, and who were appealed to on the subject before this Bill of the London County Council was brought in, had agreed to the 70 feet maximum limit, and they would not stir or raise their little finger

  451
  to obtain any increase of that height. But if your Lordships should think the 70 feet too low a limit, and that there is some reason for raising it, I would still urge that an increase of 35 feet is too much, especially when even in exceptional cases that limit cannot be exceeded without application to the County Council. So that if your Lordships should think that, as a compromise, 80 feet would be better than 70, I would accept that, and move for the insertion of 80 feet.
  Amendment moved, to leave out "90," and insert "70."—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  LORD HOUGHTON: I hope your Lordships will not agree to the Amendment which has been moved by my noble Friend. This question of the height of houses came before the Select Committee upon which I had the honour of sitting, and received very careful consideration; in fact, I believe we devoted more than a day to the consideration of this one clause. I do not understand that my noble Friend brings forward this matter exactly as representing the London County Council. There are other noble Lords who are in the habit of speaking for the London County Council; and as they are not present, I think it is only fair to assume that the County Council are prepared to bow to the decision of the Select Committee. I do not understand that my noble Friend does more than take an amateur interest in the beauty of London. He takes an entirely different line to that which was taken by the County Council before the Select Committee. It was stated by the County Council, with great frankness, that their only object in introducing this clause was to prevent the erection of monstrous buildings, of which, perhaps, the best known example now is the large residential mansions at Queen Anne's Gate. But the noble Lord seems to want to confer upon them general powers over buildings in London, and, in fact, to constitute them a kind of Committee of Taste for London, an office which they themselves expressly disclaim. Perhaps I might call to your Lordships' attention, as it is rather difficult to judge from a single building, the figures of the heights of some well-known buildings in London. The Queen Anne's Mansion
  452
  building is 145 feet high to the top of the wall. That has a flat roof, and therefore the question of extra stories does not arise. But to come to buildings which I think your Lordships will all agree are not exceedingly high placed in the position in which they are, I may mention that the public building which includes the Foreign Office and other public offices is 89 feet high, and I do not think anybody will say that is an excessive height for a building fronting an open space. Then the buildings in Northumberland Avenue greatly exceed the proposed height, and so do a good many new buildings in Piccadilly, to which I think no particular exception has been taken. I am bound to say the instance which guided us most in our decision was Grosvenor Place. The houses there are 82 feet high, and they have in some places three stories in the roof. I cannot think that houses of that height can be looked upon as monstrosities, although in certain places they might very possibly be found to be too high. Then there is the case of the building known as Albert Mansions at Albert Gate. The history of that building is very well known. It was originally intended to build it to an extreme height, but the First Commissioner of Works, Mr. Plunket, with great adroitness was able to check that by threatening to build a wall between it and the Park, and to carry the wall up to the height of the building. As the building stands it is over 100 feet. I think your Lordships will agree it is far from being un-ornamental, and as a matter of fact it has been, I should say, generally much admired. On the Committee it was our unanimous opinion that the London County Council ought to have powers to check the excessive height of buildings, but that it should not be continually called upon to revise plans or to decrease the elevations of buildings of which the height is more a matter of taste than I may say of symmetry. Because I must remind your Lordships there is a very great extent of frontage in London. There is especially the river frontage, and the whole of the frontage on the parks, as well as the frontage in the larger squares. In those positions very high buildings may be very properly allowed, and I think your Lordships will all agree that

  453
  up to quite a recent time the buildings in London had been too low for any ornamental effect. I should also remind your Lordships that this is really a new power. As my noble Friend said, at present there is a power for dealing with new streets, but there is no power whatever of interfering with the heights of buildings in other localities. It seemed to us that, this being a new power, it ought to be used with great caution, and we did not wish to confer upon the Council a power of using it indiscriminately. Your Lordships will remember that in one of the other Bills dealing with property in London which we have had before us, dealing with St. Pancras, it seemed to a great many of your Lordships that we had hardly been tender enough of the rights of property. In this instance my noble Friend seems to think that we have treated the rights of property with too great deference. But I do not believe your Lordships will be of that opinion, and I cannot help thinking that at this period of the Session your Lordships will not interfere in the manner suggested by my noble Friend. I must appeal to your Lordships not to overturn the decision of the Committee, which was arrived at after very careful deliberation and after hearing a great deal of evidence.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: There was a time when I used to glory in the Hankey Buildings. I used to point to them as showing what complete liberty we enjoyed in this Metropolis and in this country. But now we are fast losing our liberty and have got Hankey Buildings. I think, then, if a check can be put upon the erection of such buildings, it is certainly desirable. A 90 feet limit did certainly appear rather high, but from what has fallen from my noble Friend now, when he says that the buildings in Grosvenor Place are more than that, 90 feet does not seem an unreasonable height. But I think it depends very much upon the width of the street and where the buildings are erected. A building which on the bank of the river or fronting upon a broad street might reasonably be 90 feet in height would be utterly unreasonable and would produce utter darkness in a very narrow street. I should like to know from my noble Friend who has just spoken whether powers are taken
  454
  to regulate buildings according to the width of the street, for if no such powers are given the result may be somewhat serious.
  LORD HOUGHTON: I may say at once, in reply to my noble Friend, that there was no clause of that kind in the Bill as it was originally brought before us. I understood that it was not found possible to draw a clause which would give the County Council the power of dealing with houses in narrow streets, though I am bound to say I quite agree with my noble Friend on the Cross Benches that if such power could be conferred as is given in the case of new streets it would be extremely desirable.
  On Question, "That the word 'ninety' stand part of the Bill," disagreed to.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Before this Bill passes there is one clause to which I wish to direct your Lordships' attention. It is Clause 26, which exempts members of the London County Council from service on juries. This has been done in a sort of surreptitious manner, as there is no such provision in the Act which constituted the County Council, and no such provision was contained in the Act of 1855, which constituted the Metropolitan Board of Works. Usually the present London County Council are supposed to be the successors of the Metropolitan Board of Works in regard to their powers and duties, and I am at a loss to know on what principle an exemption is to be allowed in the case of members of that Council, which did not exist in regard to the duties of the members of the late Metropolitan Board. If the County Councillors are to be thus exempted why should not Vestrymen have the same exemption, and I speak as a Vestryman myself? Vestries comprise many tradesmen, and all tradesmen are anxious to attend to their own business and not to serve on juries. They have a great deal of hard work to do on committees as well as the ordinary vestry work, and why should not they be exempted. Why also should not County Councillors in the country be exempted? When once you open such a door as this, you cannot tell how far the matter will go, and I therefore have to move that Clause 26, exempting members of the County Council from service on juries, be struck out of the Bill.
  Amendment moved, "To omit Clause 26."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I think it is very unusual to make so very large an alteration in a Bill on Third Reading without notice given. I do not know why my noble Friend did not take the point he now urges at an earlier stage.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I was not aware of it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think this is a considerable invasion of our ordinary rule.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: I would point out to my noble Friend that the question was fully discussed in another place, and that it certainly is an unusual course, on Motion that the Bill do pass, that so important an Amendment should be moved without any notice having been given of it.
  On Question, "That Clause 26 stand part of the Bill," agreed to.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

  ALDERSHOT ROADS BILL.—(No. 219.)
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

  THE ANGLO-FRENCH AGREEMENT.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, before proceeding with the other public business on the Paper, I have merely to say a word or two with reference to the Agreement which I have laid on the Table. I am sorry we have lost even the scanty attendance of those Members of the Opposition whose presence we previously enjoyed; but I do not think that the attendance in the House, though it is not large, is insufficient for the consideration of the few remarks I have to make upon this Agreement, the importance of which has, I think, been a good deal overrated. The Paper which I have laid on the Table consists of an Agreement which has been signed by the French Ambassador and myself with respect to three matters in which we are concerned in Africa. The first point with which it deals is the question of the Agreement of 1862, which was entered into between
  456
  France and England, and which was subsequently assented to by Germany. The meaning of that Agreement was open to considerable contest. The French Government were of opinion that it gave them a veto upon the establishment of any protectorate over Zanzibar. That was not the opinion of the German Government or of ourselves; but as the terms of the Agreement seemed to lend themselves to an ambiguity of interpretation in consequence of their departure from the form it has been usual to employ in dealing with questions of protectorate, we thought it desirable to ask the French Government to modify the form of this Agreement, and that they have consented to do. It so happened that while our position was, owing to the difference of construction put upon this Instrument, to some extent ambiguous in Zanzibar, the position of the French Government was also ambiguous with respect to the island of Madagascar. Many years ago, in the time of Lord Malmesbury, a verbal agreement had been made by the two Governments not to establish any protectorate in Madagascar. The result of the operations which took place a few years ago in Madagascar was that, to all intents and purposes, a protectorate was established, and in 1886 the French Government concluded an Agreement with the Queen of Madagascar, under which, while the Queen of Madagascar retained to herself entire independence with respect to the internal government of the country, the management of all the foreign relations of the island was passed over to the French Resident. This Agreement between France and Madagascar has never up to this time been recognised by this country; that is to say, that neither we nor, I think, any other countries have accepted exequaturs from the French Resident. The result has been some impediment to the conduct of diplomatic business. By the Paper which I have now laid on the Table we have agreed to recognise the Madagascar Treaty of 1886, or, at least, to recognise the protectorate to which the Madagascar Government consented by that Instrument, and to accept the exequaturs of Consuls and Ministers through the medium of the French Resident. I need not say that these two acts regularising the positions of the two Governments in Zanzibar and

  457
  Madagascar will not have much practical effect one way or the other. Practically, our influence in Zanzibar would have remained the same if the Treaty of 1862 had not been modified, and practically the position of the French in Madagascar would have been unchanged if the Treaty of 1886 had not been recognised by us. But the result of the mutual exchange of the declarations which have taken place is to put the situation of both Governments on a more regular footing. We have taken the opportunity on both sides, not only to reserve all rights and privileges which subjects of either country might have in either island, but also to give the most explicit guarantee to missionaries and missions, and to the freedom of religious practice and religious teaching. Besides this question affecting the two islands, we have dealt with another matter in which we were both interested. The country to the south of the Mediterranean possessions of France is, of course, open to the action of the French Government, and according to the modern doctrine of Hinterland the French Government would have a certain claim upon it; certainly, so far as I know, no other person has any claim. On the other hand, at the other end of the Continent the British Niger Company, which acts under a Royal Charter, has established a very flourishing dominion over a very fertile land, and its commercial enterprise is advancing with considerable rapidity. It has established relations with the native Potentates of that country, and the Treaties which it has concluded give to it rights extending much further inland—that is to say, much further north—than the actual range of its commercial operations. It was obvious that if this process went on the two Powers would meet—the French Government and the Royal Niger Company—and, indeed, there was nothing to prevent the French Government from advancing as far as it liked to the south at the present moment. There was no Treaty or international right in its way, but it seemed to us very desirable that some effort should be made to draw a line separating the two spheres of activity. It is consequently provided that a line should be drawn from a place called Say, which is at present the ultimate point of the influence of the Niger Company, on
  458
  the River Niger, to another place northwest of Lake Tchad called Barruwa. But as the Niger Company has made Treaties with the great Empire of Sokoto, it is expressly provided that the line shall be drawn so as to place not only Sokoto but all that fairly belongs to it within the zone of the Niger Company. That, of course, will necessitate the line being deflected somewhat to the north. In this arrangement I think the Niger Company has benefited considerably, for although it has made Treaties with Sokoto, it has made none with the Empire of Bornu, which lies along the western shore of Tchad, and that country was open to the operations of anyone who could persuade the Sultan of Bornu to enter into arrangements with him. It is therefore of advantage that a line should be drawn which gives the considerably larger part of the western shore of Lake Tchad to the Niger Company. I will not dwell upon the respective advantages of places which are utterly unknown not only to your Lordships, but to the rest of the white human race; I will only say that the noble Lord the Chairman of the Niger Company, with whom I have been in constant communication, expresses himself well content with the arrangement to which we have coMR. I think that it is a desirable arrangement as far as it has gone, but it will not escape your Lordships that it is a very inchoate arrangement, as we have only agreed on the two points from which the line is to start, and it will remain for a Commission to settle what the intermediate locus of the line will be, it being guided under the Instrument by no other consideration than this—that whatever fairly belongs to the Empire of Sokoto is to go to the zone of the British Niger Company. In conclusion, I have only to say that what we have done concerns solely the territory to the south of the French possessions on the Mediterranean. We have exchanged Notes by which both Powers recognise that nothing that we have done is intended to affect, or does, in fact, affect, any rights which the Sultan of Turkey may have with reference to the regions lying south of his Tripoli dominions. In addition, it has been agreed that a Commission is to consider the relations of the two countries in

  459
  other parts of the Niger, and to delimitate their respective spheres of influence. But with respect to that part of the subject we have come to no conclusion, but have left it entirely to the Commission. The Commission has, I believe, been named, and I have no doubt that it will work in the autumn, but of course the consent of both sides of the Commission is necessary to any determination to which we may come, and it is possible that the negotiations may take some time. I have nothing else to say; but I thought it necessary to say these few words, in order to remove some misconception which seems to have existed as to the character of our transactions with respect to the Algerian Hinterland. Anyone who looks at the map and merely measures the degrees will perhaps be of opinion that France has laid claim to a very considerable stretch of country. But it is necessary to judge land not merely by its extent but also by its value. This land is what agriculturists would call "very light" land; that is to say, it is the desert of Sahara, and, therefore, of course, the value of that part which France has asserted her dominion over is to that extent diminished. I believe, however, that the Agreement is a very fair one, and that both parties will find their profit in it. It certainly asserts dominion over countries which neither party has explored, and into which I suspect that many years, and possibly some generations, may pass away before either French or English civilization penetrates.

  HOP INDUSTRY, TOWN HOLDINGS, INFANT LIFE PROTECTION BILL.
  Message to the House of Commons for copy of the Reports, &c., from the Select Commitees.
  PRIVATE BILLS.
  Standing Orders considered and amended, and to be printed as amended. (No. 266.)
PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION EX PENSES (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 249).

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN): This Bill has for its object to provide for the payment of clerks of Unions and collectors of poor rate in Ireland in respect of the additional duties imposed upon them by the change in the Parliamentary Franchise made in 1884, which duties are very onerous and important. At that time no provision was made for any payment to the poor rates collectors or clerks of Unions, and they were left without any remuneration for the work they had to do under the Parliamentary Franchise Act, although some Boards of Guardians have been in the habit of paying clerks of Unions for it. This Bill is for the purpose of making proper provision for payment to these officials. It has passed the other House without opposition, and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

TRAMWAYS ORDER IN COUNCIL (IRE LAND) (SOUTH CLARE RAILWAYS) BILL.—(No. 251).

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, this is a Bill introduced by the Government as regards the Tramways (Ireland) Act, 1860. Its object is simply to confirm an Order made by the Lord Lieutenant in Council authorising the construction of the tramway mentioned in the Order, and I move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS ACT, 1889.

  QUESTIONS—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD(who, by consent of the House, was heard sitting) in asking Her Majesty's Government (1) when a landlord becomes liable under the 5th and 6th sections of the Public Works Loans Act, 1889, for such a portion of a loan made to a tenant as may be found at the time of the determination of the tenancy to be equivalent to the improved value of the land resulting from the outlay of the loan,—(a.) From what date does the

  461
  rentcharge become due by the landlord? (b.) For what period is it made payable? (c.) At what rate of interest is it calculated? (2.) Whether they will lay on the Table of the House the rules made by the Commissioner of Valuation in Ireland under Section 6 of the Act in question? said: My Lords, before I put to the noble Lord the question which I have on the Paper, I should like to say a few words in explanation of the reason of it. Considerable interest is felt in this matter, because much uncertainty exists in connection with these loans. Certain points in the Public Works Loans Act are open to considerable doubt as to their precise force and meaning, and it is very desirable that some information should be given upon them. The Act was passed last year, and in it were two clauses which altogether altered the law in Ireland with regard to public loans. Up to that time, if a tenant had obtained a loan, he alone was liable. In fact, the question was tried over and over again from 1860 to 1884. In 1860 the Master of the Rolls in Ireland decided that the tenant alone was liable, and not the owner of the fee. In 1884 the Court of Appeal decided again in the same way; but in this Act the clauses I refer to make the landlord—the owner in fee—liable for a loan contracted without his consent, and probably against his wish, by his tenant, provided that the tenancy had become determined and the owner in fee had come into possession. That was the proposition when the Bill first came into another place, but it was felt to be a little too strong, and the clause was watered down, so that now it runs that the owner in fee is only liable for such amount of money as would represent the actual improvement to the holding. In the first place, I will mention to my noble Friend that in Ireland I hear at this moment the Board of Works are making application for the arrears of rent or rent-charge due upon tenants' holdings that have determined. And as in this Bill it says "on the determination of the holding," surely the owners in fee are not liable to anything before the determination of the holding. I think the Board of Works in Ireland are rather of that opinion themselves, because a form of
  462
  letter has come before me which is very curiously worded, in which the Board of Works ask the owner of the fee whether he considers himself liable, the writer stating, "I shall be glad to hear whether you dispute the liability." That is a very curious way of wording their demand, and I think they must really mean that they believe they have no right to make such a claim, and therefore one of the questions which I put to my noble Friend is, when this rent-charge really becomes payable and from what time it is meant to run. I believe there is a question as to whether tenants are included in this Act. It was stated, I believe, at the time the Act was passed that the tenants' loans were not included, but on reading the Act I should say that they were. Now, I am told that any tenants could get loans up to the time of the passing of the Act of 1881 if they had leases of 40 years to run; but if the tenants are included it would be a great question what the interest is to be. I believe it was stated originally when the Act was brought forward that the tenants' interest was not to be reduced, but apparently it will be reduced; and I wish to put this question—it is under the fifth and sixth sections of the Act—from what time does the rent-charge become due with regard to the land, and when it begins to run? This Act says it begins to run from the determination of the tenancy; therefore, surely the arrears cannot be collected. Then I want to know at what period it becomes payable after it becomes due, and at what rate the interest is to be calculated, because the Act reduces the rate of interest from 6 to 5 per cent. and from 5 to 4 per cent. Therefore, I ask whether the interest now to be paid by the owner in fee is to be reduced at the same rate that it would have been reduced if he had contracted the loan himself. Then the last question I ask my noble Friend is whether he will lay upon the Table the Rules made by the Commissioners of Valuations with regard to this point under Section 6 of the Act? I hope my noble Friend will be able to answer these questions satisfactorily, because there is a good deal of feeling and uncertainty as to these matters in Ireland at the present time.
  EARL CADOGAN: I am not surprised at the feeling of uncertainty which the noble Marquess has described, for it certainly is not clear what is the exact interpretation to be placed on those sections of the Act to which he has referred. With regard to the question which the noble Marquess has asked upon sub-sections (a) and (b) on the Notice Paper, I have to say that they are questions which can only be answered by the interpretation of the law, which I am afraid it would not be competent or desirable for me to give in the shape of an answer in Parliament. I have, however, communicated with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I will endeavour to obtain a legal opinion on the subject and give the noble Marquess an answer as soon as possible. With reference to subsection (c) of the question, the answer to that is that the interest is calculated at the same rate as before.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: That is, calculated at the same rate as the interest provided under the Bill, because it was higher before?
  EARL CADOGAN: The interest under the Bill is calculated at the same rate as before.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: Then the interest to be calculated is at the rate under this Act of 1889?
  EARL CADOGAN: At the same rate as before the determination of the tenancy. Then with regard to Section 2, I have only to say that there would be no objection to lay on the Table of the House the Rules made by the Commissioner of Valuation in Ireland, and if the noble Marquess moves for them they will be granted.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: Then I beg leave to move now for those Rules.
  "Rules made by the Commissioner of Valuation in Ireland under Section 6 of the Act:" Ordered to be laid before the House—(The Lord Tyrone [M. Waterford]),
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: I would ask whether the noble Lord thinks he will be able to give me an answer to the Questions (a) and (b) before Parliament rises?
  EARL CADOGAN: I neither know when Parliament will rise, nor when the
  464
  lawyers will come to a decision. It was stated the other night that they do not always agree, but I will do my best to give my noble Friend the information he desires as soon as possible.

LOCAL TAXATION (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) DUTIES BILL.—(No. 261.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (The Earl of JERSEY): This is a measure dealing with the distribution of any Customs and Excise Duties, and it will be received with considerable satisfaction by the County Councils. As I do not suppose it will give rise to any prolonged discussion in this House, I think a very few words only will be necessary to explain its provisions. In the first place, it provides that a sum of £300,000 shall be allotted for the purpose of police superannuation in England, of which £150,000 will be handed over to the Metropolitan Police, and the remainder to the County Police Forces; and that the residue shall, for the present, be distributed between the County and the County Borough Funds, and carried to the Exchequer contribution accounts of the different Councils. It gives power to these Councils to use this residue, or any portion of it, for the purpose of technical education in their respective districts. A Council may either contribute directly, or else it may give sums of money towards that object to Town Councils or Urban Authorities for them to deal with. These contributions will be in addition to, or over and above, any sum which, under the Technical Education Act of 1889, the different Town Councils and similar Authorities are authorised to levy by rate. In Wales the County Councils will be able, if they choose, to use their portion of the sum for the purpose of intermediate and technical education. This measure also deals with the Scotch and Irish grants in aid; but I do not think I need say anything further with regard to them. I beg leave to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow.

POLICE BILL.—(No. 262.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD DE RAMSEY: My Lords, this Bill applies to England, excluding the City of London, and to Wales, but not to Scotland or Ireland. The matter has been before Parliament for the last 13 years, and since the Committee which at that period sat under the Presidency of Sir H. Selwin-Ibbetson, Bills have, in 1880 and 1885, been brought in by various Members, but they have been successfully resisted by those who objected to any further charge on the local rates. The matter has been before the present Government for a considerable time, but it was delayed—intentionally delayed—until the Local Government Act of 1888 had passed. By that Act a new Financial Authority was created, and it was thought well to hear what that new authority had to say on the question before legislation was proceeded with. The Bill may be briefly divided into three parts, and I will briefly describe its provisions without wearying your Lordships with any figures or statistics whatever, but as it is a matter which, owing to many circumstances, has excited much interest, if any noble Lord desires further particulars I shall be happy to give them. The first part deals with pensions as of right; the second with pensions according to scale up to 25 years' service; and the third with pensions after 25 years' service, subject to age limit, if any. The new scale was a slight rise on the old metropolitan scale over the 25 years' service, and in the Metropolis it is not proposed to impose the limit of life service. The scale of ordinary pensions in the country is left to be fixed by each Police Authority within the limits of a maximum and a minimum laid down in the Bill. The duties and conditions of service in the various police forces differ so much that an amount of variation seems necessary. One uniform scale would not suit all police forces, but the scheme of the Bill is that there shall no longer be differences in the same district. Thus, although the ordinary scale of pensions may be different in the various rural and urban districts, there will no longer be differences between one man and another in the same district. After
  466
  25 years' service the constable is entitled without medical certificate to retire on pension. There are also provisions made for special pensions for men who are partially or wholly disabled from earning their livelihood by injuries received in the execution of their duty, either accidentally or not accidentally, and there is likewise provision made for gratuities to constables who have not earned a pension, and for allowances and gratuities to the widows and children of constables who die whilst in the service, or within 12 months after retiring on pension. Now, I will say just a few words about the Metropolitan Force. They have additional advantages on the old scale. The amount of their ordinary and special pensions will be substantially the same as at present, but as I have already said they will be as of right, and the forfeiture or refusal of a pension, even for misconduct, may be questioned by an appeal to a Court of Law. This will carry a right to 31–50ths of their pay after 25 years' service, without medical certificate and without question of age. If a constable has contributed by his own default to the inefficiency which compels him to retire, his pension may not be reduced by more than one-half, and gratuities may be given to the widows and children of constables who die from natural causes whilst serving in the Force. That, I think, is a general summary of this very important measure. It is founded largely on Mr. Fowler's Bill, and has been thoroughly discussed for several days before a Select Committee of the other House. I beg to move the Second Reading.
  Bill read 2a (according to order) and committed to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow.

POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 263.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN): I find some difficulty in asking your Lordships' attention to this Bill, because the state of the Benches on the other side of the House is not such as to induce one to give a very long explanation of any Bill which may be brought

  467
  before your Lordships. At the same time, I am gratified to see that both the Members of your Lordships' House present, one on the Cross and the other on the Opposition Benches, are interested in Scotland. Your Lordships have just given your assent to a Bill providing for police superannuation in England, and the Bill to which I have now to ask your assent is a similar measure for Scotland. I should explain that although in England and other parts of the United Kingdom there have been schemes for the superannuation of police no such system has been in existence in Scotland, with the exception of one small instance in the borough of Greenock. It is true that the County Police Act, 1857, and the Borough Police Act, 1862, did give powers to the Commissioners of Supply and to the Police Authorities to make certain provisions for constables worn out in their service, but no proper scheme of superannuation has ever been in existence in Scotland up to this moment. Last year, under the Bills of 1857 and 1862, a sum of £4,000 was expended in Scotland in gratuities and in making provision for superannuating constables. This question has interested the people in Scotland for some time, and on more than one occasion Bills have been introduced into Parliament by private Members, but no Act has been passed dealing with this question. However, as long ago as 1868 a Committee of your Lordships' House was appointed to consider this question, and they after having done so reported to this effect: that in the Army and Navy, in the Police Services in England and Ireland, and in the Civil Service, a system of pensions exists; that a long and regular course of instruction and training are necessary for making efficient constables, and that, as in the absence of any pension system for Scotland, men frequently retire from the Service to follow other occupations, the Committee are of opinion that a well-considered scheme of pensions and gratuities would tend to prevent men leaving the Police Service, and would conduce to its efficiency. That Committee reported in 1868, but up to this time, as I have stated, nothing has been done. Under the provisions of the Local Taxation Bill, to which your Lordships have
  468
  just given a Second Reading (although my noble Friend Lord Jersey did not refer to the point), a sum of £40,000 is provided for the purpose of police superannuation in Scotland. That sum of £40,000 is to be contributed from the Exchequer, and it is in consequence of that provision that this Bill has been introduced by Government. It was introduced into the other House of Parliament, but the Bill as introduced by Her Majesty's Government is not quite the measure to which I have now to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading. It was referred in the House of Commons to a Committee, which took evidence upon the administrative and financial provisions in the Bill. The evidence upon that point was almost entirely given by Mr. Finlaison of the National Debt Commission, to whom I take this opportunity of making the fullest recognition of the valuable services he has rendered in connection with this Bill. The result of that evidence was, that the Committee came to the conclusion that if such arrangements were carried out with impartiality and prudence no charge would fall on the local rates for about 27 years, and even after that time there are provisions in the Bill which would probably prevent them arising. Now, the provisions in this measure are not exactly the same as those in the Bill which your Lordships just now heard detailed in the English Bill. The circumstances of Scotland are somewhat different, and therefore the Committee of the House of Commons which sat to consider the matter made some alterations, but they will not, I think, require any very lengthened explanation. In he first place, to establish a pension fund there will be deductions made from the rate of pay of the police to the amount of 2½ per cent.; the fines imposed on constables by Courts of Summary Jurisdiction; proceeds from sale of constables' worn clothing; sums received for services rendered by constables for payment; and sums received for pedlars' certificates. Then there will be contributions from the Exchequer, according to the charges of the previous year. Careful provision has been made as to the allocation of these sums for the investment of the fund, and for the use of the interest as

  469
  income. I think the calculations have gone to show that with good management at the end of the 27 years such an amount of capital will have accumulated that sufficient provision will be made for meeting all liabilities. It will then be in the power of the Secretary for Scotland, having regard to the accumulation of a sufficient fund, to submit to Parliament Provisional Orders for the discontinuance of investments, if it appears to the Police Authority that the pension fund is sufficient to meet the annual charges. I think I had better now state the nature of the superannuation arrangements under this Bill. I do not propose to go into the details as to the subsidiary arrangements; but the principal proposals are these: that every constable and sergeant who has completed 25 years of approved service, and who is not less than 55, is entitled to a pension without medical certificate. In the case of superior officers the age limit is 60 years. That is the main provision of the Bill. There are other provisions with regard to gratuities or pensions to officers who may have received injuries accidental or non-accidental in discharge of their duties, and there are also provisions made for the benefit of the widows and children of officers who may have died within a very short time after they have become entitled to a pension, or who may have lost their lives or received serious injuries in the performance of their duties. But as all those provisions are detailed in the Bill, I do not think it is necessary for me to trouble your Lordships with them. The scale of pensions and gratuities is contained in the schedule. It is sufficient, I think, to state that the ordinary pension which a constable who becomes entitled will receive is 20–60ths of his annual pay, that is if he has completed 20 years' approved service; if he has completed 21 years, but less than 28, he will get in addition to the 20–60th, 1–60th of his annual pay for every year of approved service above 20 years, and if he has completed 28 years' service he will receive a pension equal to 28–60ths of his annual pay, and an addition of 2–60th for each year above 28 of approved service, so that the pension of a constable will never exceed two-thirds of his annual pay. The provisions with regard to
  470
  Scotland are not quite so favourable as those with regard to the Police Force in England in the Bill which your Lordships have just assented to. In England and Wales there have been schemes in operation for this purpose in different parts of the country, that is providing for superannuation in the various Police Forces in the country, but, as I have said, in Scotland there has been no such provision or scheme. This Bill will therefore confer a new benefit upon the Police Force in Scotland. It is a proposal which I have long desired to see carried out, because it will place the Police Force in Scotland upon a more equal footing in this matter with the Police Forces in the other parts of the United Kingdom. I think it is desirable that this benefit should be conferred on a very deserving class of public servants, so long as it can be done without an undue charge upon the rates; and I believe under this Bill this can be carried into effect. I need not trouble your Lordships with any further remarks, and I move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 260.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF JERSEY: This Bill is an amalgamation of two Bills which were brought into the other House of Parliament, and has been carefully considered by a Committee of that House. It has long been felt desirable that there should be a general law passed including the various police and sanitary provisions. The majority of the clauses in this Bill are those inserted in many local Acts which have been passed by Parliament. I do not think there is anything in the Bill to give rise to controversy, and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.—(No. 248.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF JERSEY: This is a Bill which will require very few words. It is really to enable the London County Council to borrow money with which to carry out the various works they have been authorised by Parliament to execute. The Bill is an annual one, and the figures mentioned in the amounts to be borrowed have been approved by the Treasury. The other provisions with regard to the Sinking Funds, &c., are upon the lines of the former Bills, and I hope your Lordships will give a Second Reading to this one.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

  RESERVE FORCES BILL.—(No. 250.)
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a to-morrow.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. to be considered in order to their being dispensed with for the remainder of the Session.

  DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to, with consequential Amendments; The said consequential Amendments to be considered to-morrow; and to be printed. (No. 267.)
  House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Five o'clock.