Sitting of 14 July 1890

QUESTIONS.

  LIGHTHOUSES ON FAIR ISLE.
  MR. LYELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the work of erecting lighthouses on Pair Isle has begun; what is the present state of the works; and when it is expected that the buildings will be finished and the lights shown?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I understand from the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses that the contractors whose tender was formally accepted on the 23 rd ultimo are now actively engaged in preparing material and arranging for the shipping of it, and expect to commence operations on the island before the end of this month. The erection of the lights will be proceeded with as quickly as possible, having regard to the difficulties of communication with the island.

  EGYPTIAN WATER SUPPLY.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the Report of M. Prompt, Administrateurdes Chemins de Fer Egyptiens, submitted to the Egyptian Government on 27th February, 1890, in which he states that, if a railway were made from Khartoum to the Red Sea, and were maintained in working order, the effect would be to stimulate the

  1587
  Soudanese to increased cultivation, and thereby to materially diminish the supply of water available in Egypt; whether he is aware that in 1889, during the month of July, only from 15,000,000 to 17,000,000 cubic metres of water reached the Delta daily, although 25,000,000 metres are required for existing areas; whether this year the cultivation of rice has been suspended in favour of cotton; and whether he will cause to be printed and circulated to Members copies of any maps, diagrams, or documents bearing upon this subject illustrating the proposed area which it is proposed by M. Prompt to develop and Colonise as the result of the scheme recommended by him, and of any papers or maps relating to the Raiyan-Moeris storage reservoir and escape canal projected by Mr. Cope Whitehouse?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUS-IRON,: Her Majesty's Government are in possession of M. Prompt's scheme, but have not been informed of the estimates referred to in the second and third paragraphs of the question; and they do not deem it proper to submit to Parliament projects which it rests within the discretion of the Government of Egypt to adopt, if they see fit to do so.

  INTERDICTED MEETING AT WISHAW.
  MR. PHILIPPS: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the Magistrates of Wishaw prohibited an open air meeting proposed to be held at the Cross at Wishaw on 2nd June, and instructed the Constabulary to prevent the meeting from being held; and whether he can state the nature of such interdicted meeting; and under what Statute it was so prohibited?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): My attention was called to this matter by the question of which notice was given by the hon. Member for Northampton. The facts appear to be as stated in the first paragraph. The object of the meeting, as described in the posters calling it, was, "Resistance of Compensation. The Duty of the Hour." I am informed that the Magistrates, who are the elected police Magistrates of the burgh, had no apprehension of disturbance, and that this interference was in no way
  1588
  actuated by; the; nature of objects of the meeting or the conflicting opinions of any sections of the community They acted solely because the place proposed was a part of the streets where, in their judgment, a large public meeting could not be held without the ordinary traffic of the streets being interfered with and danger of accident arising. The place called the Cross is simply the point of intersection of two narrow Streets, and even the normal space was at the time Curtailed by a hoarding erected for some building operations. The Magistrates acted in what they held to be their Common Law duty to prevent obstruction in the streets, and they had also in view Section 248 of the I General Police Improvement (Scotland) Act, 1862. I am informed that there is a park at a short distance from the Gross, where meetings can be held without inconvenience to anyone, and in the present instance the promoters, protesting against the action of the Magistrates, adjourned to the Good Templars Hall and there held their meeting.
  MR. PHILIPPS: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the interdict by which the meeting was prevented, and the notice which was served upon the Chairman? The notice prohibited the holding of a meeting in the open air at the Gross, or in any of the public streets of the borough. Is there anything in the Act of 1862 which gives to the Magistrates such Wide authority as that; and, if not, under what authority do they act?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The primary object was to prevent the meeting being held in a particular place. The place was narrow, and the Magistrates were of opinion that the holding of a meeting there would obstruct the traffic. I do not think that the interdict involved any deliberate intention on the part of the Magistrates to interfere with the right of meeting unless a danger to the traffic arose.
  MR. PHILIPPS: Would not the ordinary course be to allow the meeting to be held and to remove any persons creating an obstruction?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The Magistrates might have taken the course suggested by the hon. Member and waited until the streets were obstructed before they interfered. But they gave

  1589
  persons the option of going to the meeting or refraining from doing so.
  MR. PHILIPPS: Why do they say that the meeting would have created an obstruction? [Cries of "Order!"] Surely I am in order in pressing the right hon. Gentleman for the authority under which the Magistrates acted?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am not prepared to give the authority. The primary duty of the Magistrates was to preserve the peace.
  MR. PHILIPPS: I beg to give notice that I will put a further question to the right hon. Gentleman on the subject.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to lay down the principle that a legal meeting becomes illegal from prohibition by the Magistrates?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I do not intend to lay down any principle of the kind. What I hold is that the Magistrates were quite within their rights in letting the inhabitants know that they would prevent people from standing about and causing an obstruction.

  THE ESSEX MILITIA.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can explain why the Essex Militia (3rd Battalion) was assembled at Warley, and sent by train to Colchester and back to Warley, and why the 3rd Battalion did not occupy the camp recently vacated by the 4th Battalion; and what object is gained by the expense involved in sending tents and camp equipments for 700 men from Colohester to Warley and back for the 4th Battalion, and sending the 3rd Battalion from Warley to Colchester and back, instead of occupying the camp at the place of assembly?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): The object gained was the instruction of the 3rd Battalion in a large camp with regular troops. The original arrangement for this year was that the 3rd Battalion should train at Colchester Camp, and the 4th Battalion in barracks at Warley, but the drainage at Warley Barracks was found to require attention, and the 4th Battalion was, therefore, encamped at Warley. This was not considered a sufficient reason for depriving the 3rd Battalion of the
  1590
  valuable instruction arranged for it at Colchester.
  MAJOR RASCH: In consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman I beg to give notice that I will call attention to the matter on the Transport Vote, and move a reduction.

  HALL HARKING.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received any communication from the India Office or from the Viceroy of India on the subject of Hall Marking; and whether he can now make any statement thereon?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's, Hanover Square): No, Sir; I have not received any communication from the India Office or from the Viceroy on the subject of Hall Marking.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Has the right hon. Gentleman any means of knowing whether such communications have reached the Secretary of State, because my information is that they have?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I made inquiry, and was informed that none have reached. I will make further communication. The matter is a complicated one, but I have no doubt that I shall receive some communication soon.

  INDIAN COUNCILS BILL.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury to what day he intends to postpone the Indian Councils Bill?
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH, Strand, Westminster): The Indian Councils Bill will stand over until Monday next.

  THE NAVAL MANCBUVRES.
  MR. GOURLEY: I had intended to ask the First Lord pf the Admiralty about what time he intends holding the forthcoming Naval Manœuvres; how many and what type, of ships are to be mobilised, and whether it is correct that the date has been postponed owing to many of the vessels having to be longer under repair than anticipated; and whether, with the large addition to the Navy of ocean cruisers, ho will consent to extend the scope of the experimental operations to the protection of the leading food and cotton ocean

  1591
  routes, notifying to commanders of British, shipping that they will be expected to avoid, as far as practicable, nominal capture by hostile experimental cruisers? As the noble Lord is not in his place may I ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can answer the question?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: No, Sir; I have no information.

  ST. OLAVE'S BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether complaints have reached him that the St. Olave's Beard of Guardians only visit the workhouses under their care once a fortnight; and, if so, whether the Local Government Board will see that the order directing Guardians to visit such houses once a week is carried out in future by this Board?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE, Tower Hamlets, St. George's): I have not received any complaint as to the times when the workhouses of the St. Olave's Board of Guardians are visited by the Visiting Committee. I will communicate with the Guardians on the subject.

  SEVERE SENTENCE.
  MR. PHILIPPS: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that two men named Edward Marshall and Charles M'Gill have been sentenced by Sheriff Balfour to a fine of £5 or 14 days' imprisonment for killing one rabbit; and whether he will cause inquiry into the matter with a view to the mitigation of this sentence?
  *MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The attention of the Secretary of State has been drawn to this ease, and inquiry is being made.

  TRINIDAD.
  MR. GILLIAT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that Mr. G. F. Bowen has been removed from the post of chief clerk and accountant in the Receiver General's Office, Trinidad, where he was in receipt of a salary of £400 a year; that his post was amalgamated
  1592
  with a lower one, and the united office was given to a junior two grades below him in the same Department during his absence, no hint of such intention having ever been given to him until it was done; can he explain why no reason has ever been assigned for passing him over, and that a copy of the Correspondence regarding it was refused; whether the Receiver General is correctly reported to have stated to the Legislative Council that Mr. Bowen was "about to retire," and on what authority he made this statement; whether he is aware that Mr. Bowen was reduced, at less than a month's notice, from a salary of £400 a year to a pension of £180, and that, after waiting for more than a year, the Governor's ultimatum on the subject is a post at £100 a year, with which His Excellency trusts Mr. Bowen will be content; and whether he can see his way to recommend the reinstatement of Mr. Bowen in a post which, with his pension of £180, may give him the equivalent of the salary of £400 of which he has been deprived?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. do WORMS,): In 1889, as part of a scheme of re-organisation of the Department of the Receiver General in Trinidad, which was approved by the Secretary of State, the office of chief clerk and accountant, held by Mr. Bowen with a salary of £400 a year, and the office of savings bank accountant, the salary of which was £350 a year, were amalgamated into one office, with a salary of £450 a year, which was conferred upon the savings bank accountant, Mr. Bowen being pensioned off. Mr. Bowen was absent on leave when it was decided to abolish his office. He was informed on the 14th March, 1889, of the intention to abolish it, and the abolition took effect on the 1st of May. The reason for not appointing Mr. Bowen to the amalgamated office was that the appointment of the other gentleman was considered more conducive to the efficiency of the Department. It was not considered desirable to furnish him with a copy of the Correspondence. I am unable to say whether the Receiver General is correctly reported to have made the statement referred to in the third paragraph of the question, or, if he made it, on what authority he did so. Mr. Bowen's

  1593
  incomes was reduced from a salary of £400 to a pension of £180. The Governor has been instructed to give him, if possible, another appointment, and I believe Sir W. Robinson has done his best to re-employ him. The salary of the post now offered to him is £150. The Secretary of State hopes it may be possible to find Mr. Bowen a suitable post, the salary of which will raise his income to its former level.

  ARMY RETIREMENT.
  MR CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state to the House the number of Majors, Lieutenant Colonels, and Colonels who have been re-called to duty under the age of 55 after their retirement in accordance with the Royal Warrant of December 1886, which empowers him to do so?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: No retired officer has yet been re-called to serve, the occasion contemplated in the Royal Warrant not having arisen.

  INFECTIOUS DISEASES ACT.
  COLONEL EYRE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what is the number of sanitary districts, urban and rural, in which the Infectious Diseases (Notification) Act, 1889, or similar Private Act, has been adopted; whether he has any Reports to show; what is the effect so far, whether beneficial or not, to the public health; and whether it works without friction to the parties interested?
  *MR. RITCHIE: The Infectious Diseases (Notification) Act, 1889, has been adopted in 481 urban sanitary districts, 337 rural sanitary districts, and 18 port sanitary districts. The Act is in force throughout London, without adoption. Compulsory notification is also in force under local Acts in 56 other districts. The population, according to the Census of 1881, of the districts where there is a system of compulsory notification in force is 19,316,000, the total population of England and Wales being 25,974,000. I have no special Reports on the subject, but I have no doubt whatever that the notification of infectious diseases will have results beneficial to the public health, and I am
  1594
  glad to say that the arrangements have worked to a remarkable degree without friction.

  THE METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the regulation of the expenditure of the Metropolitan Police rests with himself alone now that the Imperial contribution is permanent and not annually voted; and if all increase of expenditure sanctioned by him is put on the rates of the Metropolis without any sanction cither of the House of Commons, representing the ratepayers, or the representatives of the ratepayer?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY or STATE FOR, THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,): It is difficult to answer, otherwise than in debate, this somewhat argumentative question. Technically, the sum formerly payable as an Imperial contribution no longer appears on the Votes; but an effectual opportunity for Parliamentary criticism is afforded by the fact that the Vote "Police, England, and Wales" still bears the salaries of the Commissioner and Receiver, as well as such other portions of Metropolitan Police expenditure as are repayable from Imperial funds. The control of the ratepayers and the powers of the Secretary of State are neither greater nor less than they were when the Imperial contribution did appear as such upon the Vote. As the law now stands the Secretary of State cannot increase the charge on the ratepayers beyond the statutory maximum of 9d. in the £ of the rateable value of the district. The accounts of Metropolitan Police receipts and expenditure are, by Act of Parliament, fully published to this House every year.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: What is the present expenditure? How many pennies in the £?
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: Not very far from 9d.

  ASHTON-IN-MAKERFIELD CHURCHYARD.
  MR. CALEB WRIGHT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that in the parish of Holy Trinity, Ashton-in-Maker-

  1595
  field, Lancashire, it is intimated that a breadth, or grave, in the churchyard is appropriated "only on condition that no other than the Church of England Service is ever used"; whether this is in accordance with the provisions of the Burial Act of 1880; and, if not, whether steps will be taken to prevent such a limitation of the rights of parishioners?
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: The Secretary of State has communicated with the incumbent, who states "that in every case the provisions of the Burial Act of 1880 have been loyally and faithfully carried out." It may, therefore, be inferred, though the question is not specifically answered, that no such intimation as is referred to can have been given. I may add that such an intimation would not, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, be consistent with the object and provisions of the Act of 1880.

  THE LIFE SAVING APPLIANCES ACT.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of. Trade whether his attention has been called to a statement adopted by a meeting of steamship owners, held1 in Glasgow on the 8th instant, setting forth the unsuitability for the cases of coasting, river, and short sea excursion steamers of the "Rules made by the Board of Trade under The Merchant Shipping (Life Saving Appliances) Act, 1888,'" presented to Parliament on the 10th ultimo; whether similar representations have been made from other ports,; and whether he will consider the propriety of modifying the rules, with a view of meeting the objections raised?
  MR. CHARLES WILSON: I beg also to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the intention of the Government to enforce the Life Saving Appliances' Rules in respect to the coastings Continental, and short over-sea trades, in spite of the objections raised by the shipowners interested, these objections being fully explained in a statement transmitted to Members of Parliament from a meeting held at Glasgow on the 8th July; and whether he will receive a deputation to consider the objections of the shipowners interested?
  *SIR M HICKS BEACH: My attention has been called to the statement
  1596
  referred to by the hon. Members and also to others of a similar nature, and I have carefully considered the representations made. It must be remembered that the Rules in question have been prepared by a Statutory Committee appointed under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping (Life Saving Appliances) Act of 1888. That Committee consisted of three shipowners selected by the Council of the Chamber of Shipping; one shipowner selected by the Shipowners' Associations of Glasgow, and one shipowner selected by the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association and the Liverpool Shipowners' Association conjointly; two shipbuilders selected by the Council of the Institution of Naval Architects; three persons practically acquainted with the navigation of vessels selected by recognised Shipmasters' Societies; three persons being or having been able-bodied seamen selected by recognised Seamen's Societies; two persons selected conjointly by the Committee of Lloyd's, the Committee of Lloyd's Register Society, and the Committee of the Institute of London Underwriters, Mr. T. H. Ismay acting as Chairman. The Act of 1888 was the result of the recommendations of a Select Committee of this House presided over by Lord Charles Beresford, and the special representations which have been made from Glasgow and other places are in opposition to the Report of that Committee, which recommended that in one form or other, life saving provision should be made for all persons on board a vessel. The Statutory Committee, to the composition of which I have referred, in the first instance recommended rules of rather greater stringency than those now before the House. But at the instance of the gentlemen from Glasgow and others whose representations have now been received, I called Mr. Ismay's Committee together a second time, in order that they might consider the very points now raised, and after an exhaustive reconsideration of the case, they came to the conclusion that the rules now before House were practicable and necessary in the interests of public safety.; In these circumstances, I do not think it would be right for me to disregard the advice of a Statutory Committee, so composed as I have stated of representative men

  1597
  eminently capable of forming an Opinion on these matters. I am, therefore, not prepared to alter or modify the rules until practical experience has shown that it is necessary.

  BANKRUPTCY CLERKS.
  MR. LAWSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that in his statement last year he gave ah assurance that in consideration of the prospects held out by the Official Receiver to the clerks engaged in the Bankruptcy Department of the High Court, he Would deal with the Conditions of their service in the recess, any change has been made in the position of the clerical Staff Within the patronage of the several Official Receivers; and Why the clerks, who have proved themselves competent, should not be brought into the regular Civil Service; and whether it is the intention of the Solicitor to the Board of Trade to transact the whole of the business connected with the department of the Official Receiver; and, if so, whether the existing I staff is sufficient for the purpose?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEAOH: The question of the organisation of the staff engaged in the Bankruptey Department of the High Court was considered by a Departmental Committee upon the recent retirement of Sir-Robert Harding, and in accordance with their recommendation certain members of the existing staff were added to the permanent establishment by their appointment as Assistant Receivers, but it was not deemed desirable to make any general alteration in the terms of service of the personal staff of the Official Receivers In accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, the Solicitor to the Board of Trade has taken over and now performs, the duties of the Official Solicitor in Bankruptcy, whose Staff is available for the purpose.

  ARMY MEDICAL OFFICERS.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War Whether he has received Memorials from various medical schools in Great Britain, praying that the recommendations of Lord Camperdown's Committee in respect to rank, titles, and emoluments of Army Medical Officers be
  1598
  carried into1 effect; and whether: he would be willing to include in the Return, which he has promised to present to the House, like Memorials from the colleges and medical corporations of Great Britain?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: Yes, Sir; they will be included.

  AGRICULTURAL COMPENSATION PROCEDURE BILL.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, having regard to the fact that in 1889 an Act was passed, as a non-contentious measure, amending "The Agricultural Holdings Act (Scotland,), 1883," by enabling references under that Act to be Carried out by a single referee appointed by the Court, he will give his assent to the Second Reading of the Agricultural Compensation Procedure Bill, which makes the corresponding Amendment in "The Agricultural Holdings (England) Act. 1883," on the understanding that Clause 5 of the said, Bill, which deals with another matter, shall be omitted?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): I should view with favour the, principle of any Bill which has for its object the, simplification of agricultural valuations f but I am afraid I cannot pledge myself as to the Second Reading of the Bill in question until we have it before us and I am able to gather from the discussion what course the House would be likely to take with regard to the retention or omission of any particular, clause or clauses of the Bill, It is really a matter for the House and not for me to decide whether the Bill is contentious or not.
  MR. CHANNING: Is it not obvious that if a Bill of this nature is not taken before 12 o'clock there, can practically be no discussion upon it?
  MR. CHAPLIN: The matter is in the hands of the House.

  ARMENIA.
  MR. LEVESON-GOWER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he already possesses, or will endeavour to obtain, any information as to the correctness of the following statements

  1599
  in the Daily News of 11th July, that; according to the Official Report, nine persons were killed, and 78 wounded, and three shops and six houses pillaged at Erzeroum on the 20th ultimo; that the Armenian Patriarch has received orders from the Minister of Justice to dissolve the Civil and Ecclesiastical Armenian Councils at Van, and to recall the Bishop to the capital, thereby removing some of the few remaining restraints upon the exactions of the Turkish officials, and the brutalities of the Kurds; and, lastly, that certain Armenian peasants of the village of Alakilesse, in the Province of Sivas, were burnt alive by the police, owing to their inability to satisfy the tax-gatherer's demands, without any punishment of the Zaptiehs ensuing, in spite of the written complaint of the Armenian Prelate of Sivas; and whether, in the event of these reports proving correct, the Government will direct Her Majesty's Representative at Constantinople to urge the Porte to rescind the orders issued by the Minister of Justice, and to punish the authors of the outrage at Alakilesse?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: A very unfortunate incident occurred at Erzeroum at the date mentioned, when a search for arms was made in an Armenian church and school with the consent of the, Bishop. This was resented by the Armenians, who appear to have been responsible for the not which followed including an attack on their own Bishop. Some shots were also fired on the troops, which took fatal effect upon them, as well as killing the sexton of the church, and in the subsequent collision and rioting the loss of life was greater than stated in the question, some 20 having been killed and from 200 to 300 wounded. The Vali used his best efforts, and succeeded in preventing further misfortunes. Certain recommendations made by the British, French, and Russian Consuls were communicated to the Porte, and representations were at the same time made by the British and French, and it is believed by the Russian Embassy also, and order has been re-established. Her Majesty's Government have no information with regard to the other matters mentioned in the question.
  MR. LEVESON-GOWER: Will Her Majesty's Government take advantage of the presence of Sir William White in
  1600
  this country to confer with him as to the serious condition of affairs in Armenia?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will avail himself of the opportunity of Sir W. White's visit to confer with him on this and other subjects.
  In reply to Mr. F. STEVENSON (Suffolk, Eye),
  *SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid: I do not think there is any need for special instructions.
  MR. J. O'KELLY: I understand that Mr. Clifford Lloyd has sent in a Report. Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to lay it on the Table of the House?
  *SIR J. FERGHSSON: I have no doubt that Papers will be presented giving Reports of what has taken place, Mr. Clifford Lloyd has carefully reported on all of these cases.
  MR. BRYCE: When will the Papers be presented? Will it be before the end of the Session?
  *SIR J. FERGUSON: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to put the question on the Paper.

  BEHRING'S SEA FISHERIES.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, inasmuch as it appears that much of the Correspondence which has passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of America, regarding the question of the Behring's Sea Fisheries, has already been published in America, that Correspondence, or any, and what, part of it will be now laid before Parliament; and whether he is in a (position to make any statement regarding the progress of the negotiations upon the subject of these fisheries?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: Papers are being prepared, and will be laid shortly; they are rather voluminous. At the present stage of the negotiations it would not be desirable to make any statement to the House.

  BOOK POST RULES.
  MR. CAUSTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he can explain why the Postal Authorities decline to accept at the halfpenny postage rate invoices and statements printed

  1601
  at foot with the words, "Please remit the above by return of Post," whereas those printed with the words "All remittances should be made by return of Post" are accepted at that rate; and why voters claims forms, with printed instructions at foot "This claim, &c." are also refused at the halfpenny rate, whereas if the instructions wore general that "All claims, &c." the forms would be accepted at that rate; and whether he can see his way to put an end to this system of making different charges in cases which are almost the same?
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): Such documents as those to which the hon. Member refers are passed at the book-rate of ½., provided they I contain no communication of the nature of a letter, although it is difficult in some cases to decide whore the line should be drawn. I am, however, in correspondence with the Treasury respecting certain alterations which have been proposed in the Book Post Rules, with the view of removing some of the difficulties now experienced.

  POST OFFICE—EAST CENTRAL DIVISION.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I had intended to ask the Postmaster General what number of men of the East Central Division were represented by the deputation which he stated waited upon him at: the Generall Post Office on Friday afternoon; whether they were authorised to speak to him in the name of the whole body of their fellow-workers; what were the points they laid before him, and what concessions he promised to them, or is now prepared to make to the postmen as a body? I do not at present propose to put these questions.

  MORTALITY AMONG MINERS IN CORNWALL.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the recent article in the Lancet commenting on the fearfully high rate of mortality among the miners of Cornwall, due to the insanitary condition of the mines; and whether he will instruct the Government Inspector of the district to hold a special and open
  1602
  inquiry into the facts, and to report upon the same, with, a view to measures being adopted for their protection?
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: The Secretary of State has referred the article in question to the Inspector in Cornwall, and is now awaiting his Report. The Secretary of State has had, for some time past, under his consideration the question of amending the law as to metalliferous mines, and a Bill has been for some time in draft having for its object the better regulation of these mines, with a view to lowering the rate of mortality.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I had intended to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to a a recent article in the Lancet, commenting on the fearfully high death rate of the minors of Cornwall, attributable to the unsanitary conditions under which they have to work, and whether he will extend the scope of the Reference to the Royal Commission on Mining Royalties, with a view to their taking evidence as to how far any improvement of the said unsanitary conditions is prevented by the undue exactions imposed in the form of royalties and rents by the landlords upon the adventurers, and offering recommendations thereon? I will, however, postpone the question until I hear further upon the subject.

  INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE POST OFFICE.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I. beg also to postpone the question I intended to ask the Postmaster General, whether he still declines to afford hon. Members who may desire to. visit the Post Office, with a view to seeing something of its internal administration before they are called upon to discuss and criticise it on the Post Office Estimates, the necessary facilities for so doing.

  "WRIGHT AND SON V. THE QUEEN'S HARBOUR MASTEE."
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Attorney General if his attention has been drawn to the remarks of Mr. Justice Mathew, as reported in the Times of 8th July, in the case of "Wright and Son v. the Queen's Harbour Master, the Admiral Superintendent, and others," as follows:—

  1603
  "He regretted the case, it was not the only case, in which those dealing with persons connected with the Crown had no remedy,"
  and to the fact that the Jury found for the plaintiffs with damages, and that the learned Judge entered the verdict for the defendants; and whether any steps will be taken in the shape of legislation inconsequence?
  *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir. R. WEBSTER,): As far as I can judge from the somewhat limited report in Times, the case referred to by the hon. Member dose not appear to be in which there is any necessity for, legislation. The defendants, who were public servants, were pot guilty of, personal negligence. They took no part in pointing out the berth to which the plaintiff took his barge, and it seems, to me that the risk was properly borne by the plaintiff, whose bargeman in charge of the barge had seen the, berth and signed the book, stating that he was satisfied with the berth before berthing.

  THE POSTMEN.
  EARL COMPTON (York, W.R., Barnsley): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the establishments of the differ But Offices of State at Home and Abroad is empowered to inquire into the numbers, salaries, hours of labour, superannuation, cost of the staff, and the administration, regulation, and organisation of the said Offices whether the Royal Commission is still in existence; and whether if it has not finished its labours, it would be possible that it should extend its inquiries, without delay, to the Post and Telegraph Office?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: AS I stated on the 11th inst., Her Majesty's Government consider that the questions which have arisen between the Post Office and its subordinates should be dealt with by the Department, which is quite competent to do so. It is not, in our opinion, expedient or desirable that public servants should be encouraged to look for redress of alleged grievances to the good offices of a third party, instead of to the head of their Department, who is directly responsible to the Government and to this House, Under these circumstances, we do not favour any special reference of this nature to the Royal
  1604
  Commission, which has been engaged on a. most protracted and difficult investigation, for a very long period, and may now naturally desire to be soon relieved of its arduous duties. I should add that the Commission was not appointed, as the instruction will show, for the investigation of grievances, but for the purpose of reviewing the organisation of public establishments, mainly with the view of effecting economy.
  EARL COMPTQN: Are not the words in the question as to the number Salaries, hours of labour superannuation &c., the exact words used in the instructions to the Royal Commission, and were not the telegraphists almost invited to send in a statement of their grievances?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I think it is probably, but it is an argument against referring questions of this kind to a Royal Commission seeing that the time occupied in such an investigation must be necessarily contracted.
  MR. ISAACSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will favourably consider the position of the suspended postmen in the East End of London, some of whom have, been in the Service upwards of 30 years, with the view of re-instating those who, by intimidation were induced to join the Union, as they bitterly regret their conduct in going out with others on Thursday last?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is now going into what is mere matter of opinion.
  *MR. RAIKES: In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I can only, say that the mattor in which he is interested shall receive my most careful consideration when a proper time arrives. I should naturally be desirous, if it should prove compatible with the public interest, to re-instate any postmen of good character who can prove that their misconduct was due to intimidation. [Cries of "Oh!" and "Collusion."]
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! If the question had appeared upon the Paper I should have struck out that part which, refers, to postmen having joined, the Union.
  *MR. RAIKES(continuing)said: But I have at the same time to consider the maintenance of proper discipline, and I think it right to add that in view of the

  1605
  disgraceful behaviour since the events of last Wednesday of persons professing to be sympathisers with the postmen who on that day deserted their duty in the Eastern District, I must postpone, while such outrages continue, any consideration of representations made on their behalf.

  LOCAL TAXATION BILL.
  MR. ROWNTREE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if the new draft of Sub-section 3, Clause 1, of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Duties Bill will be communicated to the House before the Bill is proceeded with?
  *MR. RITCHIE: Yes, Sir.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to postpone until next week the question which stands in my name, to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether; having regard to the desirability of making provision, whenever opportunities occur, for public parks and recreation grounds in the midst of the crowded population of South London, he will consider the propriety of applying the unappropriated monies arising out of the new Spirit Tax to the acquisition, for the benefit of the public, of the Crystal Palace And its grounds, which, it I is believed, the present proprietors would offer to the nation for about £750,000?

  ROYAL COMMISSIONS.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to postpone until next week the question of which I have given notice, to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will furnish a Return showing the number and objects of Reference of the several Royal Commissions issued since the year 1870, in which the Commissioners were precluded by the terms of Reference from embodying in their Report any recommendations for legislation or otherwise?

  THE WINTER SESSION.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD (Queen's Co., Ossory): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government, before finally deciding to recommend to Her Majesty the reassembling of Parliament in November, will consider the danger to the health of Members likely to result from such a course, together with the inconvenience
  1606
  which Wilt be caused to Irish and Scotch Members who will have to travel long distances at a most inclement period of the year?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I need hardly assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government would greatly regret if any proposals which they may feel called on to make for the progress of public business should endanger the health of Members of this House; but there is, I believe, a general belief that Sittings protracted into the autumn are more injurious to health than an earlier meeting in the autumn or winter.

  IRELAND—EMERGENCY MEN IN FALCARRAGH.
  MR. DALTON: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in the Derry Journal of 9th July, stating
  "That the emergency man in charge of evicted farms in the Falcarragh district, accompanied by three soldiers of the Lancashire Regiment, now stationed in Dunfanaghy, visited the townland of Carrowcannon on Saturday evening last, and when they went a short distance beyond the Catholio Church the emergency man drew his revolv°r and fired fire shots. There was a crowd of little children playing close by at the time, who fled panic striken to the nearest house;"
  and whether, as this is not the first instance of such conduct on the part of this man, he will take any steps to prevent a repetition of similar conduct?
  *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): It appears that the caretaker referred to fired three shots to attract the attention of a police patrol which was in the neighbourhood, as he observed three soldiers quarrelling. It does not appear to be the case that these soldiers were in his company, nor were there any children or persons in his view except these soldiers. On one other occasion only does this caretaker appear to have discharged his revolver, and that was when attacked by a dog.

  "SHADOWING."
  MR. J. O'CONNORI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that Mr. P. D. Kenny, of Birmingham, lately shadowed in Ireland by the police, writes to the Daily News, saying that—

  1607
  "Politics are no part of his business," denying "that he belongs to the National League of Great Britain," or "that he gave any one authority to describe him as about to attend an Irish meeting," and adding "that there was no reason in fact for the conduct of the police:"
  and whether, in view of these statements, he has any further information to communicate to the House as to this case?
  *MR. MADDEN: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone the question.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that one Patrick Burke, who has for years sat in a street in Tipperary engaged in the occupation of repairing boots and shoes, has been of late and is now being obliged to leave his usual place of sitting owing to policemen standing near him and pretending that he was working for them; that Burke, having removed to an archway near New Tipperary, was again so shadowed by policemen that for nine weeks he got no work, and was obliged to apply to the Poor Law Guardians for relief; that having returned to his former position three policemen placed themselves between him and Mr. P. Fitzgerald, of Tipperary, who wanted to approach Burke on business; whether, when Mr. Fitzgerald sent a messenger to Burke, the messenger was ordered "to get out of that" by the police; and what is the reason for this interference of the police with Burke in earning his livelihood?
  *MR. MADDEN: I am informed that owing to complaints made to the police by some boycotted shopkeepers that the man referred to in the question while working near their shops took part in promoting the boycotting under which they were suffering, his movements were watched by the police, but that it is not the case that when he removed to another part of the town he was watched. The police at no time interfered with persons talking to the man unless they were obstructing the pathway. They have no information as to the particular incident referred to in the second paragraph, but if a date be given further inquiry will be made.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the reports in the Cork papers, from which it appears that two brothers, Edmond and David Kent, were at Fermoy
  1608
  fair on 6th instant, engaged in selling some lambs, when a constable came and "shadowed" David Kent for a considerable time; that this man, David Kent, then went and stood beside District Inspector Ball, and followed the Inspector about the fair, he himself being followed meanwhile by the constable; that District Inspector Ball spoke to Mr. Kent, and said, "if you persist in following me I will have you arrested," and that Kent replied that he had been prevented from doing his business by the constable shadowing him, and that if the Inspector withdrew the constable he would not follow the Inspector; if it is true, as reported, that the Inspector thereupon ordered the shadowing constable to arrest Mr. Kent, who was kept in custody from 9 a.m. until 3.30, and then summoned; and whether he can state under what authority was Mr. Kent arrested, and why was he shadowed in the manner described?
  *MR. MADDEN: The hearing of the charge against the man referred to appears to have been fixed for to-day, and the case is, therefore, so far as I am aware, still sub judice. It would, therefore, be improper for me to enter into a discussion of the facts.

  THE IRISH GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
  MR. PINKERTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been directed to resolutions passed, on Wednesday last, at a meeting of lay and clerical members of the Irish General Assembly, demanding for the Presbyterians a fair share in the Parliamentary representation of Ulster, and also "The abolition of dual ownership in land;" and if he will use his influence with the Government to carry out and give effect to these recommendations?
  *MR. MADDEN: My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland has not seen a copy of the resolutions referred to in the question of the hon. Member.

  GALWAY HARBOUR.
  MR. PINKERTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the sum of £45,000, borrowed by the Galway Harbour Commissioners from the Board of Works, for the pur-

  1609
  pose of improving their harbour, was advanced by that Board after careful examination and full approval of the plans and specifications submitted by Mr. Price, C.E., and the resolution passed by the Harbour Board in favour of carrying out these new works was only carried by a majority of one; if, after an expenditure of £45,000, a deep dock was constructed without an entrance channel, the water in the dock being 10 feet deeper than in the channel outside; and if, seeing that the port has derived no benefit from this expenditure, and as the Board of Works approved of and are responsible for everything that was done in the harbour, the Government will consider the advisability of either expending a further sum to deepen the entrance channel, so as to complete the works as at first designed, or relieve the port from the burthen of this debt?
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): I must ask the hon. Member to put the question to-morrow. I have not yet been able to obtain the information.

  CAPPA PIER.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he has received a resolution or memorial from the Town Commissioners of Kilrush, County Clare, in reference to the extension of Cappa Pier; and, if so, will he state his intentions respecting it?
  *MR. JACKSON: No, Sir; I cannot find that any memorial or resolution has recently been received at the Treasury about Cappa Pier.
  *MR. JORDAN: In reference to my next question on the Paper, I wish to say that this is not the question which I handed in to the Clerk at the Table, and I protest against the mutilation of my questions in this manner.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  *MR. JORDAN: Well, Sir; I withdraw my question, and will put it to-morrow.

  SLAUGHTER OF COWS IN PHœNIX PARK.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what was the loss suffered by the taxpayers by the slaughter of the cows in the Phoenix Park under the Pleuro-pneumonia Order; and will cattle in
  1610
  future be prevented grazing in the park, and sheep, if necessary, used to eat down the grass?
  *MR. JACKSON: I regret to say that the net loss incurred, owing to the slaughter of cattle in Phoenix Park, was £3,129 10s. since January 1, 1890. This sum is a charge on the £20,000 provided in the Act of this year to compensate the owners of cattle slaughtered tinder Pleuro-Pneumonia Orders in Ireland. I may mention that, in allowing the cattle in question to be admitted to the Park, the Board of Works acted in consultation with the Verterinary Department. The Park is, at present, grazed by sheep, and this will probably continue for some years. I have given orders that no further cattle shall be admitted into the Park until there has been some change.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Until when?
  *MR. JACKSON: Until there has been a change. As I have stated, the compensation is provided under the Pleuro-pneumonia Act.

  CORK LUNATIC ASYLUM.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he can now state what decision the Irish Government have come to with regard to the recent Report of their Inspectors, as to the overcrowding of the Cork Lunatic Asylum, and the necessity for additional accommodation for the inmates?
  *MR. MADDEN: The Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums report that the additional buildings now in course of construction at the Cork District Lunatic Asylum will provide accommodation for 409 patients, which will then give a total accommodation in that Asylum for 1,209 patients.

  EVICTIONS AT CASTLEISLAND.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any moneys are due to the Board of Public Works, Ireland, on the farms from which Messrs. James Leahy, Jeremiah Nugent, and Michael Donovan have been evicted at Castleisland, County Cork, and of which Mr. Thomas Henry Marmion is now inoccupation: if moneys are due on them what are the amounts, and what steps have been taken, if any, to recover them?
  *MR.JACKSON: I shall feel obliged to the hon. Member if he will put the question to-morrow. The information supplied to me is not as full as I should like to give to the House.

  THEFT AT DROGHEDA.
  MR. BLANE: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the remarks of Lord Justice Fitzgibbon, at the Dundalk Assizes, on Saturday, 5th July, in a case where two persons named Brady and Hughes were charged, convicted, and sentenced to terms of imprisonment for larceny of lead from the Imperial Hotel, Drogheda, when his Lordship stated in effect that Patrick Byrne, at whose instigation the load was stolen, should be charged with the offence; and will he direct a prosecution against Byrne?
  *MR. MADDEN: This case will, I have no doubt, be referred to me in the ordinary course; but I have not as yet received the Papers.

  NEW TIPPERARY.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: I wish to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he has seen a paragraph in the Echo of Saturday, headed "Moonlighting by a Policeman," which states that Constable Palmer had been convicted of smashing the windows of two houses, and sentenced to two months' imprisonment, but that the District Inspector said there would be some difficulty in finding him because he had left the country, upon which the Magistrate made an observation as to the conduct of the police in allowing the man to escape. If the statement is true will inquiry be made into the conduct of the police; and will the Return presented to the House contain a Return of outrages committed by the police themselves?
  *MR. MADDEN: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to put the question on the Paper.

  CARDIFF VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. ALFRED THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the number of rank and file in the 1st Cardiff detachment, which at the close of the last volunteer year on 31st October, 1889, was 115, has now fallen to 60, and that between that date and the 1st of July, 1890, 58 have resigned,
  1612
  and only three recruits have been enrolled; whether he is aware that the number of rank and file in the 2nd Cardiff detachment, which on 31st October, 1889, was 324, is now less than 260, and that the resignations since that date do amount to upwards of 90, and the recruits to 26 only; whether it has been reported to him that the average attendance at the parades in uniform of the Cardiff detachment is now about 50, as against an average attendance of the two detachments combined last year of more than double that number; whether his attention has been called to the remarks of the Colonel commanding the 3rd Volunteer Battalion Welsh Regiment, at the parade of the Cardiff detachment on the 16th of June, expressing surprise at the muster being such a small one, and stating that, unless the attendance at drills improved, he would have to reduce the strength of the detachment from six to four companies, and also to the announcement on parade within the last fortnight that the Officer commanding the detachment will pay 2s. 6d. to each member of the detachment for every recruit introduced by him; and whether, in view of the fact that the 3rd Volunteer Battalion of the Welsh Regiment consists of 23 companies stationed in 10 towns in the Eastern portion of the County of Glamorgan, accupying an area measuring 25 miles in length, and that the Colonel Commandant resides at a distance of 24 miles from the headquarters of the Battalion, he will consider the advisability of reverting to the old system, and divide the present very large Battalion into two Battalions?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: The hon. Member has considerably over-stated the case, but the Cardiff companies are undoubtedly suffering from a deficiency of recruits. The average attendance on parade of the Cardiff detachment is reported to be over 100. The number of resignations is always greatest between November and January, and is partly due to the migratory character of the population; of those referred to in the question, the majority occurred before the amalgamation of the two Cardiff detachments. It is true that the Colonel lives 24 miles from Cardiff, but he is within easy reach by rail, and lives in the centre of a large population, from which a great proportion of his men are drawn. Reports from the Authorities on the spot

  1613
  show the battalion generally to be in a high state of efficiency—there being more efficients this year than ever before—and, in my opinion, no sufficient cause has been shown for abandoning a system which, on the whole, is working extremely well.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  In reply to Mr. H. GARDNER (Essex, Saffron Walden), and Captain VERNEY (Bucks, N.),
  *MR. W. H. SMITHsaid: If the Tithe Bill is withdrawn it will be withdrawn after 12 o'clock, when the Order is reached. The Employers' Liability Bill will be withdrawn either to-night or on some future day. There are on the Paper notices of Amendments to the Reformatory and Industrial Schools Bill, and if it is opposed the Bill will not be proceeded with.
  MR. BARTLEY: Will the Savings Bank Bill be proceeded with?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I understand there is very little opposition to that measure.
  MR. STOREY: There is a very considerable 'amount of opposition to it.

  CIVIL SERVICE (PRIVATE SECRETARIES).
  Return ordered—

  "In the following form, of persons (a) belonging to the permanent Civil Service, (b) not belonging to the permanent Civil Service, who received appointments in the permanent Civil Service since 1869, while acting as Private Secretaries to Ministers":—

  Name

  Appointment, if any, previously held in the permanent Civil Service.

  Official title of Minister to whom he was Private Secretary.

  Total remuneration received.

  To what post appointed while a Private Secretary.

  Remuneration of such post.

  Date of appointment.

  —(Mr. Watt.)

  ALDERSHOT ROADS BILL.—(No. 298.)
  Reported from the Select Committee.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 229.]
  Bill re-committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 379.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (ABRIDGED PROCEDURE ON PARTLY CONSIDERED BILLS).
  Power to the Select Committee to Report observations and opinion.
  Report brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 298.]
  Minutes of Proceedings, with an Appendix, to be printed. [No. 298.]

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Sir JOHN MOWBRAY reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged Sir William Vernon Harcourt from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, and had appointed in substitution: Captain Verney.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (ACTIONS REMITTED TO COUNTY COURTS).
  Address for—
  "Return showing the number of Actions and Issues remitted by the High Court of Justice to the several County Courts in England and Wales and tried by them, in the six months ended the 31st day of December, 1889 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 355, of Session 1889)."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Education Code (1890) Bill, without Amendment.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 353.)
  (4.25.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committe do consist of Twenty-one Members."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  MR. E. ROBERTSON, in whose name an Amendment stood on the Paper to substitute the number 72 for 21, said: The Motion which was made the other night contained two propositions—(1) that none but Scotch Members should sit on the Committee; and (2) that all the Scotch Members should sit on the Committee. The Lord Advocate described it as a fantastic proposal, but I see that the right hon. Gentleman has now accepted the first proposition. There is one name—that of Sir C. Dalrymple—which is not that of a Scotch Member, but if the hon. Baronet is not a Scotch Member he is a Scotchman. The hon. and learned Gentleman was proceeding to criticise the composition of the proposed Committee, when.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid: Order, order! The Standing Order only permits a short statement on a Motion of this sort.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I suggest that the Government should have put the Motion down at a time when every hon. Member could have expressed his opinion?
  *MR. SPEAKER: I am not permitted by the Standing Order to allow anything more than a short explanatory statement.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The Motion ought to have been made after 12 o'clock.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to move the Adjournment of the Debate.
  *MR. SPEAKER: No hon. Member can move the Adjournment of the Debate.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I take it, Sir, that you must put the names separately?
  *MR. SPEAKER: No doubt.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I understand that my Motion is in order.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Yes.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Then I beg to move it.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out "Twenty-one," and insert "Seventy-two,"—(Mr. Edmund Robertson,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That 'Twenty-one' stand part of the Question."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): During the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill I intimated, on behalf of the Government, that while we assented to the measure going before a Select Committee, we expressly reserved the right of the Government to influence the composition of the Committee. The hon. Member now proposes that in place of a Committee of 21 members there shall be a Committee of 72. Immediately after the Motion was carried to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, the hon. Member proposed that the Committee should consist of the whole of the Scotch Members, and the present proposal is really a repetition of the rejected Motion. I hold that the course the Government have taken is thoroughly defensible. We have a precedent in 1888. Then there was the Burgh Police (Scotland) Bill before the House, and it involved a considerable amount of detail. It was referred to a Committee of 25 Members, of whom four were English Representatives. Three of these were, however, of Scotch nationality, and the other one was an Englishman sitting for an English constituency. If it is said that this Committee ought to be a microcosm of the House in the sense of representing the various nationalities, the argument is at once reduced ad absurdum, because then a Committee of 21 Members should only include two Scotch Members. I can only repeat that in this matter we are following in the footsteps of our predecessors. We hold that as this matter is one requiring special local knowledge there should be a large infusion of the local element on the Committee.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! It is my duty to point out that the hon. Gentleman has spoken quite as long as the Mover of this Amendment.
  (4.30.) The House divided:—Ayes 138; Noes 130.—(Div. List, No. 184.)
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Mr. Baird, Mr. J. B. Balfour, Mr. James Campbell, Mr. Childers, and Mr. Crawford nominated Members of the Committee.
  DR. CLARK: I now propose to substitute for the name of Sir C. Dalrymple—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! It is not competent for the hon. Member to move without notice the insertion of another name, although he may move to omit any particular name.
  DR. CLARK: I beg, then, Sir, to move the omission of the name of Sir C. Dalrymple, and I do so as a protest against the constitution of the Committee. While only 20 per cent. of the Liberal Scotch Members are to be on the Committee, 75 per cent. of the Conservative Scotch Members are to be placed on the Committee, which I hold ought more fairly to represent Scotch opinion in this House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Sir C. Dalrymple be one other Member of the Committee."
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I hope my hon. Friend will not propose this Amendment. The hon. Member whose name he proposes to omit is a Scotchman, though it happens that he is not a Scotch Member. He is, however, only an English Member by accident. I think that the proposed Committee accurately represent the ordinary ratio of the various parties in the House.
  Question put.
  (4.45.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 156; Noes 122.—(Div. List, No. 185.)
  Mr. Arthur Elliot, Mr. Hozier, Mr. Hunter, Colonel Malcolm, Sir Herbert Maxwell, Sir Archibald Orr Ewing, Mr. Parker Smith, Mr. Philipps, Mr. Provand, Mr. Edmund Robertson, Mr. Angus Sutherland, Mr. Mark Stewart, Mr. Shiress Will, Mr. Vernon, and the Lord Advocate, nominated other Members of the Committee.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, that Seven be the quorum.

STATUTE LAW REVISION (RECOMMITTED) BILL [LORDS] (No. 251.)
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Schedule.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Schedule 1 stand part of the Bill."
MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to move to insert "34 Ed. III., Sec. 1."
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! This is a Bill for repealing statutes which are no longer in force, but the hon. Member proposes to repeal a Bill which is in force, and which has been recently applied. That is quite outside the scope of the Bill.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I think this point was decided differently on a former occasion when a Statute Law Revision Bill was under consideration.
THE CHAIRMAN: If so, it was irregular.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Are you not, Sir, bound by precedent?
THE CHAIRMAN: I think not.
MR. CONYBEARE: But are we not entitled to show that this Act is not in active operation? And if we show that, is it not competent for us to move to repeal it?
THE CHAIRMAN: The statute might be repealed, undoubtedly, if it were not in operation, but I understand it has been recently applied.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Would it not be in order to move to repeal the statute as regards England and Scotland?
MR. CONYBEARE: I should like to point out that it was never intended that this statute should apply to Ireland, and that it has been wrongfully enforced in that country.
THE CHAIRMAN: In another form, and on another occasion, that might be a proper subject for argument, but it cannot be raised now.
MR. CONYBEARE: Then I beg to move to report Progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Conybeare)
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir E. CLARKE,): I hope that the hon. Member will not persist in the Motion. The Bill has been very carefully considered by a Select Committee, and there is no controversial matter in any part of it. It deals with Bills between the 43rd year of George III. and the sixth year of William IV., and the passage of the Bill is being awaited

1619
in order to issue two new volumes of Revised Statutes. The hon. Member will be rendering a great service if he co-operates in getting this Bill through the House.
MR. BRYCE: On a proper occasion I shall be glad to assist in repealing this particular Statute, but as the Chairman has ruled that it cannot be done now, I hope hon. Members will not prevent the passing of the Bill, which is necessary in order to allow the issue of new volumes of the revised Statutes, which are awaited with considerable interest.
MR. CONYBEARE: I shall have to press the Motion.
MR. STOREY: May I point out the Bill is intended to provide for the repeal of Statutes which are of such a nature as to be no longer capable of being put in force, regard being had to altered political or social circum stances. I submit that this Statute of Edward III. comes under that provision. Certainly it is incapable of being put in force in England, and I hold that at any rate it is competent for us to move to repeal it so far as England is concerned.
MR. CONYBEARE: I should be glad to withdraw my Motion to report Progress if it were not for the important point which has been raised that according to precedent we are entitled—
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That point cannot be debated on a Motion to report Progress.
MR. CONYBEARE: I only wish to say that having regard to that fact I do not feel that I can withdraw my Motion.
DR. TANNER: I understand that this Statute was passed in order to avoid vexatious and frivolous arrests. I think it is time the Government, seeing the use made of it, have made up their minds to include it in this Bill, and I sincerely hope that even now they will consent to do so.
(5.8.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 93; Noes 195.—(Div. List, No. 186.)
Original Question put, and agreed to.
Bill reported without Amendment.
MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope that the House will assent to the Motion
1620
I now make, that the Bill be read a third time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
DR. TANNER: I object. I wish to know whether the Committee stage of a Bill, the Report, and the Third Reading can all be taken on the same day?
*MR. SPEAKER: There is no Report stage, as the Bill has been passed through Committee without Amendment. By the general consent of the House a Bill can be read a third time after it has been passed through Committee.
DR. TANNER: Is it impossible for me to raise an objection to the Bill being read a third time?
*MR. SPEAKER: The objection of two or three voices will not suffice to prevent the Bill being read a third time.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read the third time and passed, without Amendment.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1890–1.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1890–1.

  CLASS II.
  1. Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £102,602, 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 Local Government Board in Ireland, including various Grants in Aid of Local Taxation."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): On Friday night, when the moment of 12 o'clock intervened to check a somewhat heated Debate, hon. Members opposite were making a violent attack on myself, based upon the alleged inequality of treatment in the cases of Captain Eyre, Justice of the Peace, Mr. Kirnan, and Mr. Clarke. It was alleged that while these three gentlemen had been surcharged by an auditor of the Local Government Board in respect of relief afforded out of the poor rates to evicted tenants, proceedings against Captain Eyre had been taken under a

  1621
  Statute, purposely with the view of enabling him to evade payment. The hon. and learned Member for Longford said that whilst Mr. Clarke had been imprisoned in reference to a surcharge of £5, Captain Eyre, against whom there was a surcharge of £40, had got off scot free; and this, although both gentlemen wore charged on the same day and before the same Magistrate. I desire to point out that the trials did not take place on the same day, and that Mr. Clarke was subsequently tried under a different Statute, in consequence of the failure of the proceedings which had been instituted against Captain Eyre. I was told on Friday night by the hon. and learned Member for Longford that I ought to be ashamed of myself, and that my action as a Minister was disgraceful, and much more in the same strain, until he was called to order by the Chairman. In the case of Mr. Kirnan an accusation equally injurious to the Administration of the Local Government Board was made. The facts of the case are that Captain Eyre was surcharged in January, 1887, before I occupied my present post as Chief Secretary, and Mr. Kirnan was surcharged at the same time, and was tried under the same Statute. The proceedings against both were identical, and the payment was obtained from either of them. Mr. Kirnan and Mr. Clarke were subsequently surcharged last year, and were tried under a different Statute because of the failure of the earlier proceedings against Captain Eyre and Mr. Kirnan. The Committee may now judge upon what basis wild and reckless accusations are made against the Irish Government and against myself, and what reliance ought to be placed by hon. Members sitting on the Government side of the House upon statements made by hon. Members opposite. The episode is, in my opinion, interesting, as illustrating the sort of justification for accusations which it is thought proper to hurl across the floor of the House in most excited tones.
  MR. T.M. HEALY: Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, when I find that I have been led into an inaccuracy, I beg to tender him a full expression of my regret. I hope the example which I, not a long-descended man, set will not be lost on the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. DILLON: Sir, I too desire to apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for having made a statement which turns out to be inaccurate. Whilst I apologise to him fully for the inaccuracy of the information supplied to us in this particular instance, yet I do not think the speech of the right hon. Gentleman is well founded, because, out of the many charges hurled by Irish Members across the floor of the House, on this occasion alone has the Chief Secretary proved us to be inaccurate. I call the attention of the House to this fact, and to the length at which the right hon. Gentleman addressed it on this solitary triumph. I admit in the frankest way that on this occasion he has triumphed over us. But what about the hundreds of other cases in which we have brought the most damaging charges against the Irish Executive? They were accurate and could not be denied. If they were capable of denial why did the Chief Secretary not deny them as he has done in this instance? I apologise in the fullest way and without reservation for having made the statement that the Local Government Board, of which the Chief Secretary is the head, proceeded against two individuals on the same day under different Statutes. I would venture to direct the attention of the Committee to the great importance of this case, quite apart from that charge. Admitting now that we were wrong and misinformed, and that the Board did not commit the outrage of proceeding under different statutes, there still remains the extraordinary circumstances of the imprisonment of the man for signing the relief book of the union. I ask the President of the Local Government Board of England whether he knows of any case in England in which a Guardian of the Poor has been put in prison for signing the relief book, and not paying surcharge? I am informed that surcharging is not at all an uncommon thing in England, and will the right hon. Gentleman state whether there is any case in which a man has been thrown into gaol for three months because he has not paid surcharge? If he can state that he will certainly rescue the Chief Secretary from a difficult position and render him substantial help. If he cannot do so I ask whether it is fair that this man, Timothy

  1623
  Clarke, should have been kept in prison for three months, to the ruin of his business as a cattle dealer, for nonpayment of a small surcharge? I am informed that Kirwan was prosecuted at the same time as Eyre. He was also prosecuted a second time, and the Friend who supplied me with the information simply confounded the two prosecutions. On the second prosecution Mr. Kirwan was thrown into prison for a month for non-payment of surcharge, and treated as an ordinary prisoner. Clarke was not treated as an ordinary prisoner, but as a first-class misdemeanant, I believe. I would invite the President of the Local Government Board in England to give the law and practice here in regard to this matter.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE, Tower Hamlets, St. George's): The hon. Gentleman has appealed to me to state whether or not any imprisonment takes place in England for neglecting to comply with an order of the Local Government Board with regard to surcharge. I have not known, during the time I have held the office which I now hold, anything of the kind requiring to be done. The Local Government Board have, undoubtedly, in my time made surcharges, but they have been paid.
  MR. DILLON: Are there many instances in which the surcharges have not been paid for a long time? Has the right hon. Gentleman ever known a man thrown into prison for not paying?
  *MR. RITCHIE: I have answered the question, that I cannot say what has been done. During the time I have been President of the Local Government Board I have not known of anyone imprisoned for non-compliance with an order for surcharge by the Local Government Board. More than that I cannot say. The surcharges have, of course, been paid.
  DR. TANNER: The question is whether surcharge is not dealt with differently in different cases. I will tell you what occurred in Cork. The Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Cork District Lunatic Asylum was surcharged by the Castle Authorities, and for upwards of two years the money was not paid. But the Chairman of the Cork Lunatic
  1624
  Asylum is a Conservative—a high Tory of the city of Cork. The Dublin Castle Authorities, I would point out, imprisoned a Nationalist, but let off their Conservative friends. I would like the Chief Secretary to pay attention to this matter, and to answer it if he possibly can. Is it not the fact that Mr. Morgan and some of the members of the Cork District Lunatic Asylum were surcharged and allowed time to pay?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Sir, I ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is not the constant practice in England to remit surcharges in certain cases, and to allow long periods for payment; whether it is the practice, in the case of a poor struggling man, to pounce down upon him, and to put him into gaol for a number of months simply because he has not paid the surcharge?
  *MR. RITCHIE: The Local Government Board can remit surcharges on two grounds—legal and technical—in which the circumstances are such as to justify remission. There is no disposition, of course, to press unnecessarily in regard to the time at which the surcharge is to be paid.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us a statement as to the amount of the surcharges remitted by the English Local Government Board within the last three years?
  *MR. RITCHIE: If I can, Sir, I shall be glad to give any information I can when the Vote comes on.
  MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly ask one of his clerks, before the Local Government Vote is disposed of, to say whether any person has been imprisoned in England for surcharge?
  MR. J. O'CONNOR (Tipperary, S.): Will the right hon. Gentleman also, if convenient, give a Return of the number of cases in Ireland where surcharges have been made, and whether they have been remitted or not?
  *MR. RITCHIE: I cannot make any statement with regard to facts in Ireland.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Why not?
  *MR. RITCHIE: Because I have no knowledge whatever of them.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Could the right hon. Gentleman not refer to his friend the Chief Secretary?
  *MR. RITCHIE: It is not in my Department.
  MR. KILBRIDE: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman what course he intends to pursue with regard to the Nationalist Press in Ireland?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The discussion is on the Local Government Board Vote, and unless the hon. Member is going to speak of the Nationalist Press in relation to that Vote he will be out of order.
  MR. KILBRIDE: The point I wish to raise is this. By direction of the Local Government Board the ordinary advertisements of the Carlow Board of Guardians, under the Labourers' Act, have been refused to the local Nationalist paper, and given to the local Conservative paper. As a matter of fact, the Nationalist paper has 10 times the circulation of the Conservative paper. I have a letter from Mr. Condon, owner and editor of the Carlow Nationalist paper, in which he says—
  "Some time ago it became necessary to publish official advertisements relating to the Labourers' Act in Carlow Union, and although the Guardians of the Union, who have to pay for such advertisements, expressed by formal resolution their wish to have the advertisement published in the local Nationalist newspaper, as well as in the Conservative organ, the Local Government Board refused to accede to their wishes."
  Now, I wish to know whether Local Boards are to be prevented from having their advertisements published in the Nationalist newspapers? I ask what is the reason of this? Is it on the ground that the proprietors or editors of some of these newspapers have been, or may still be, in gaol as criminals, that they are not allowed to have these advertisements? If so, I beg to say that Mr. Condon was not in gaol for any offence under the Criminal Law Procedure Act; he was confined under the Act we have been discussing, namely, that of Edward III., and because he refused to admit that he was a criminal, and to ask for bail, he was practically told by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary—"I will do all in my power to prevent your earning or your obtaining your ordinary means of livelihood." Does the right hon. Gentleman expect that mean and petty action of that kind will tend to allay public feeling against the
  1626
  Government in the districts where these things are done, or in anyway aid the cause of law and order? I would here remind the right hon. Gentleman that Mr. Condon was confined for two months in gaol for having reported a speech made by myself, a speech which was published without note or comment. It was said that a school was boycotted on that occasion owing to that publication, and that it was boycotted in order to lead to the amalgamation of two schools in the same neighbourhood, so as to enable them to get the grant; but I am glad to inform the right hon. Gentleman that the schoolmistress of the second school is going next week to America, and that we shall be without both schoolmaster and schoolmistress for a short time to come. I would, however, ask the right hon. Gentleman docs he want anything more of the same kind? I would also draw his attention to the fact that on the occasion of Mr. Condon's trial it was sworn that his paper did not reach the locality referred to until the Monday following the day of its publication, at the end of the week in which it was issued, that the school was boycotted on the Tuesday, and that the circulation of the paper had nothing directly or indirectly to do with the boycotting. I also put it to the Committee, whether a journalist who merely reports public events, and has had nothing to do with the matters charged, has any right to be treated by the right hon. Gentleman in the paltry and vindictive spirit which has been displayed towards him.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I would remind the Committee that last Friday evening I brought this very question under notice, but that, owing to the peculiar facility the right hon. Gentleman has for overlooking things which are important to the issues involved, and passing on to other matters to which his sublime attention is more congenially directed, he did not allude to the case reported in the Cork Examiner to which I then referred. I pointed out that the editor of the paper had expurgated his offence, whatever it may have been, and now it has been explained that the offence consisted merely in the refusal to give bail. There were two cases—those of the Cork Examiner and the Cork Herald—which I brought under the notice of the right hon. Gentle-

  1627
  man. They are two papers published in an important city in the south of Ireland—a city having 80,000 inhabitants—these papers circulating over the province of Munster, and having been boycotted by the Local Government Board, so that the advertisements of the Cork Union were confined to a Conservative paper, owned by friends of the right hon. Gentleman, and circulating only among a few select people in the south of Ireland. This is not only unjust to the boycotted newspapers, but also to the people who read them, as well as to the contractors who send in tenders, because they do not see the advertisements in the papers they read. I say that this complaint applies not only to the Local Government Board, but to the Fisheries Board, and all the other Boards and Departments under the management of the right hon. Gentleman. Nevertheless we are constantly seeing the right hon. Gentleman turning up his eyes at the boycotting which prevails in Ireland. Why, Sir, we can point to documentary evidence showing that orders are issued by the Boards in Dublin under the management of the right hon. Gentleman that the advertisements are to be given only to those papers which are of the political colour the right hon. Gentleman approves of. At any rate, I think the right hon. Gentleman ought at least to accord to us the courtesy of noticing the complaints we make, and not to con fine himself to the making of sensational speeches on those points that are really of no great importance, while he entirely overlooks and passes by matters that are of very much importance, and upon which we are anxious to obtain information. Under these circumstances, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the speech of my hon. Friend.
  MR. P. J. POWER: I do not desire, on behalf of the Nationalist Press of Ireland, to claim any favour from the right hon. Gentleman; but they do claim justice, and the ratepayers also demand justice, at the hands of the Government. This boycotting of the Nationalist Press not only works unfairly for the newspaper proprietors, but it also operates unfairly towards the people who pay the rates of the country. I will give the Committee an instance of this. There was an important meeting in the county of Dun-
  1628
  garvan not long ago convened by the Local Government Board, and Inspectors were sent down. The meeting was advertised in two of the local Conservative papers, not half a dozen copies of which ccirculated in that county, or in the neighbourhood of Dungarvan. I asked the right hon. Gentleman why a matter which intimately concerned the ratepayers of that district was not advertised in the papers which circulated there, and he said he understood that the proprietors of those papers had been guilty of breaking the law, and that the Government did not intend to insert any of their advertisements in those papers. Now, the guilt of these persons amounted to this—that they had inserted in their papers reports of the so-called suppressed branches of the League. I think, Sir, the proceedings of the Local Government Board with regard to surcharge afford a good illustration of the way in which Irish grievances are attended to by the Government. They are never tired of telling us that the grievances of the Irish people, when brought forward by their Representatives, will be attended to. On this question of surcharge we have again and again asked that the same law as is applied to England shall be applied to Ireland, namely, that there should be some kind of appeal; but, although the Government acknowledge the principle to be correct, they have done nothing to put it in operation in Ireland. In our country the auditors are appointed, not because of their fitness for the office, but because of the hatred they bear to the Irish people, and these gentlemen have no hesitation in surcharging the Nationalist Guardians, while the ex officio and Conservative Guardians are allowed to go scot free. I was surcharged in this way myself, and it so happened that Sir Robert Paul, my predecessor, had signed cheques for similar payments in previous years, but had escaped surcharge. When, however, he saw that I was so surcharged, Sir Robert Paul came forward, and by some pressure which he brought to bear, I was not forced to pay the surcharge. While I am on my feet I wish to draw attention to another matter which has been repeatedly brought forward in this House. I allude to the system of sending aged and infirm poor back to Ireland, to end their

  1629
  days there, after they have spent the best part of their lives in this country. For my part, I should be happy to approve of any arrangement which would enable these poor people to end their lives in the country from which they have been expelled; but I would point out that the question is an important one locally—
  THE CHAIRMAN: This subject is not under the control of the Local Government Board of Ireland.
  MR. P. J. POWER: But we are in the habit of writing to them and receiving communications from them upon it. At any rate, you have the power in this country of sending paupers who may be of Irish parentage, but who have been out of Ireland nearly half a century, over to us to be supported by us, and although we have in our unions a great many English poor, we have no right to send them over hero. Of course, if you, Sir, consider that this question is not appropriate to the subject of the Vote under discussion, I will not proceed with it, but I think some reference should be made by the right hon. Gentleman to the Irish Press question, and the reason why he refuses to insert advertisements in those papers which are published and have the largest circulation in the districts affected.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member, that the Government are bound by the statute, and the alteration he desires is an alteration which it is not within the power of the Local Government Board to bring about. With regard to the action of the Local Government Board respecting advertisements in the papers in Ireland, I have only to say what I think I have said on one or two preceding occasions, namely, that the principle which governs the Irish Administration in this matter is simply that Government advertisements ought not to be sent to papers which habitually break the law.
  MR. M. HEALY: Who decides that?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Those who send the advertisements. Politics are not regarded as long as newspapers do not break the law. I do not know that I have anything to add to that, and I think the Committee in general approves
  1630
  of the broad lines of the policy laid down by the Government in the matter.
  MR. KNOX: We do not accept the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman as in any way satisfactory, and I think the Committee will see in this matter an apt illustration of the unfairness with which Nationalists are treated by the officials of Dublin Castle. I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman lays down the principle that if any newspaper in any part of the country is punished for any offence against the law that newspaper is never again to receive a Government advertisement. The Government Departments, as I understand, do not farm out these advertisements as a matter of justice or favour to one paper or another in any of these three kingdoms. By certain statutes the Government Departments are bound to give notice to the people of certain things. They are bound, as a simple ministerial duty, to send the advertisements to those newspapers which do reach the people. If not, they are not giving notice to the people, and in spirit, if not in letter, they are breaking the statutes. It is a monstrous thing that gentlemen in the Local Government Board Office, who do not profess to be able to exercise judicial functions, should take upon themselves, the task of judging what is and what is not an offence against the law of the land. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman will admit that some newspapers in the north of Ireland have, from time to time, broken the law. I suppose he will admit that the Belfast News Letter has called upon people to break the law. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that, under these circumstances, that newspaper ought to get the Government advertisements? I suppose there are scores of newspapers in these three Kingdoms that have committed the offence of criminal libel. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that not one of these papers is a fit receptacle for Government advertisements, or does he draw a distinction between one sort of offence and another? I suppose the distinction the right hon. Gentleman draws is that a criminal libel is an offence against the law of the land, and a conspiracy under the Crimes Act is an offence against the law of the right hon. Gentleman. Very often, for simply giving the people of a

  1631
  district a plain account of what had happened in the district, an Irish newspaper proprietor is branded by the Local Government Board as a person unfit to receive a Government contract. The action of the Local Government Board is simply and solely a bit of political persecution. It is contrary to the spirit of the law under which the Board act, for, by giving advertisements to papers with little or no circulation, they do not give that notice to the people which they are bound by law to give. Now, Sir, who are the gentlemen on the Local Government Board who are laying down these principles? There is an interesting publication called The Financial Reform Almanack, which gives the relationship of Members of this House with Members of the Upper House. I should like to see the principle of these Returns applied to the Local Government Board. I do not want to see the relationship to Members of the Upper House especially given, but I should like to see established the relationship between the different officials and members of the clique who have the supreme command in Dublin. You have a member of the great family of Morris, a member of the distinguished family of Gibson, and a brother of the gentleman who is chiefly distinguished by the fact that he has been, from time immemorial, the Conservative candidate for the City of Limerick. You have numbers of men who have obtained their posts simply because they are related to people who are in authority. And now, having got their posts in this way—for services as Party hacks, or for the services of their brothers as Party hacks—they purport to exercise and to assume a judicial function in deciding which newspapers in Ireland are fit to receive Government advertisements, and which are not. I maintain that that is preposterous. It is another matter which shows the intolerance of the clique who really rule Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, by one title or another—sometimes as Chief Secretary, sometimes as President of the Local Government Board—is supposed to rule Ireland, but he does not do so. The actual control of the Administration is not with the right hon. Gentleman, but with the various hacks who do the things that the right hon. Gentleman has to
  1632
  defend in this House. I desire to call attention to the action of an auditor of the Local Government Board in allowing an improper payment by the Grand Jury of the County of Cavan, under circumstances in which no such payment would have been allowed had it been made by a Representative Body on which Nationalists were in the majority. It may, or may not, be known to this House that there is a difference in the mode in which the expenses of children sent to Reformatories and children sent to Industrial Schools in Ireland are paid. In the case of Reformatories, the Grand Jury or the Urban or Municipal Authority, as the case may be, is bound to pay the cost of the maintenance of the children; but in the case of Industrial Schools the Local Authority has an option. It may, if it likes, contribute to the support of the children, but it is not obliged to do so. Now, in the county of Cavan, although the vast majority of the cesspayers are Catholic, there is a Protestant majority on the Grand Jury, and for 16 years in succession it has absolutely refused to pay a farthing for Catholic children in Industrial Schools, on the ground that there is a Standing Order of the Grand Jury against payments for children in Industrial Schools. For eight years out of the 16, however, in spite of continual protest, the Grand Jury made grants to Protestant Industrial Schools. I consider that that is a scandalous instance of bigotry and intolerance. That is not all. Year after year the Grand Jury entered this payment to Protestant Industrial Schools in the published abstract of presentments as if it were a payment to a Reformatory. The entry ran "The Meath Protestant Reformatory" so much. The Auditor of the Local Government Board must have known that there was no such thing as a Meath Protestant Reformatory. He must have known it, for he had to audit payments in different parts of the country to the Meath Industrial School as an Industrial School time after time.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In what year was this?
  *MR. KNOX: This has been done for eight years. The improper audit occurred in every one of the eight years. The Grand Jury have not passed any such presentment this year

  1633
  owing to the attention which has been drawn to the subject in this House, but the improper payment was improperly allowed in the year last past. I do not make any charge against this Protestant Industrial School, as I happen to know that the managers discharged their duties satisfactorily and sent in the forms in a straightforward way, describing the institution as an Industrial School. The Grand Jury, however, falsified the Return, putting down the payment as if made to a reformatory. That is a fraud, and should have been prevented by the auditor. What is an auditor for if he is not to stop a fraud of that kind? If the Town Council of the city of Dublin were to perpetrate such a fraud we should have the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) on every platform throughout the Kingdom, denouncing the intolerance of the Irish Catholics. I appeal to the Chief Secretary to say a word or two in condemnation of the intolerance and fraud of the Cavan Grand Jury, although they are amongst his own supporters.
  MR. M. HEALY: As the right hon. Gentleman has not risen to explain the remarkable incident referred to by my hon. Friend, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to explain how the Irish Local Government Board discharges the extraordinary duty cast on it of acting as censor over the Irish newspapers, finding out which of them keeps the law, and which of them breaks it. I say that as this censorship over newspapers by the Local Government Board affects the fortunes and properity of a great many Irish newspapers, we are entitled to further information from the Chief Secretary. We have it from the right hon. Gentleman that the Local Government Board, instead of having regard to the circulation of a newspaper and the fitness of the medium for the advertisement before it gives an advertisement, endeavours to find out, as the right hon. Gentleman says, whether the newspaper "is breaking the law or not." I want to know how they discharge that function? In what way do they proceed to ascertain the facts? Do they keep a file of the newspapers and submit it to their legal adviser? They have a legal advisar—a distinguished Irish lawyer—
  1634
  and I want to know is it on his advice that they act in discharging this important function? I have always thought that it is for the Courts to decide whether or not the law is broken, but that old maxim, like a great many other old maxims, does not hold with the present Government of Ireland. I say we want some little further information. We want to know whether—say in the case of the Cork Examiner or the Cork Herald—where they are accused of having broken the law, an opportunity is given to the editor or proprietors of being heard in their own defence. I apprehend not. We know it is said these papers are not loyal, but, notwithstanding that, I submit that the proprietors should have some right of appeal when the Local Government Board undertakes to decide a legal issue. These are the extraordinary incidents to which the Minute of the right hon. Gentleman, which, we have heard of for the first time to-night, has given rise. I think that when the right hon. Gentleman comes down to this House and declares that instead of dealing with the questions of Poor Law and out-door relief, the Local Government Board go into investigations as to how far the Criminal Law of Ireland has been observed or been broken, we are entitled to some information as to the lines, upon which the Local Government Board proceeds.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In answer to the hon. Members I would say that no judicial functions are undertaken by the Local Government Board. As President of that Board I am directly and solely responsible for the principles laid down as regards the granting of these advertisements, and if blame attaches to anyone it attaches to me. I contend, however, that no blame attaches to me or to anyone else. I think that the Board would be going beyond their duty, and beyond what is just, if they were to consider the political complexion of any newspaper. I quite admit that general principle, but it would be equally absurd to expect them to give these advertisements to papers which they cannot conceal from themselves are in the habit of violating a perfectly well-understood law.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: What law?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The law of the land. I do not believe that advertise-

  1635
  ments have ever been refused in a case where it could be seriously contended that the law had not been broken by the newspaper in question. No such case has been or can be adduced. If anyone thinks that this is being done in the case of a paper which has not broken the law—if they will bring it to my notice the matter will be examined into and full justice done.
  MR. M. HEALY: No answer has been made to the criticisms of myself and my hon. Friends. If the proprietors of papers have broken the law, what is the branch of the law against which they have offended? Is it murder, or forgery, or any other of the numerous offences which find a place under the wide and sweeping term "the law of the land"? Let us take the case of the Cork Herald or Cork Examiner. What branch of the law has the proprietor of either of these papers broken? Yet they are subjected to this mean and contemptible device of boycotting. Another branch of the law is criminal libel. Is that the particular branch of the law of the land which the Irish newspapers who are refused Government advertisements have violated? It is no answer for the right hon. Gentleman to say, "The newspapers have been violating the law of the land," unless we are told what branch of the law of the land it is they have been violating. If the proprietors of the papers I have named have been guilty of illegality how is it that no member of their staff has been prosecuted? We all know that the Chief Secretary is a firm upholder of law and order, and would not allow illegality to go on for years and years without taking some steps to vindicate it. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman cannot regard the mean and contemptible device of stopping advertisements as the best means of vindicating the law. If the law has been broken, why does he not prosecute the proprietors of these newspapers? The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the officials of the Local Government Board undertake to hear and determine in camera the question whether newspapers have broken the law. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell me in what manner the 'Cork Herald or the Cork Examiner have broken the law, and why, if they have broken it, proceedings have not been taken against them?
  MR. KNOX: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a few plain questions. The first is whether the rule he has laid down that no paper, the proprietor of which has committed a crime, is to get Government advertisements, is applicable to every crime? Does it apply to the crime of libel in England as much as to the crime of conspiracy or the publication of meetings of suppressed branches of the League in Ireland? Has he considered, with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the English Local Government Board, whether the same principle is to apply to advertisements issued by the English Board? If it is to be applied to both countries, we in Ireland will have no special ground of complaint. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman lays down that the rule shall only be applicable to Ireland, I want to know what becomes of his promises of equal laws for England and Ireland? I should like to know also how the right hon. Gentleman is giving notice of events of which he is bound to give notice in districts where the only newspapers with any considerable circulation are papers which, according to his theory, have broken the law? Is he going to publish official newspapers for the purpose of bringing the advertisements before the public? And if the right hon. Gentleman deigns to answer these questions, he might also give some reply as to the case of religious intolerance which I brought before him, and which, owing no doubt to inadvertence and not to intentional discourtesy, he has omitted to mention.
  MR. CLANCY: A surprising statement was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary a short time ago. He said that no question of politics entered into this matter. That reminds one of the statement that no question of religion enters into Jury-packing. If no question of politics enters into the question, how is it that everywhere throughout Ireland, since the right hon. Gentleman has been and before he was at the Irish Office, the only newspapers that have got the Government advertisements are the Conservative papers? We know that in every department of Dublin Castle the officials discuss among themselves what are the politics of the various newspapers, and in every case, unless there

  1637
  be special reason to the contrary, we know that the fact of a paper being Nationalist or not decides the question whether it is to get the advertisements. It is utterly ridiculous and preposterous to pretend the reverse. We know that the question of politics enters into the matter of giving advertisements, and we shall not hesitate to express our opinion here with regard to it on every possible occasion. The thing has been aggravated, and the injustice and scandal have become perfectly flagrant under the administration of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman asked for a case in which advertisements have been refused to a newspaper that has not broken the law. There is the case of Mr. Condon, the proprietor of the Carlow Nationalist. He was merely asked to give securities for good behaviour, and, as has been admitted in this House, that is not even a punishment. It was not alleged chat he had broken the law, and he has not broken the law since, because if he had, I suppose the right hon. Gentleman would have prosecuted him under his Coercion Act. Then there is the case of the Leinster Leader. What crime his that paper committed that it should be deprived of all the Government advertisements? It will not do for the right hon. Gentleman to ride off on State platitudes and generalities, by saying that no man is deprived of an advertisement who does not break the law, when he knows that, as a matter of fact, the assertion is completely without foundation.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: When the right hon. Gentleman expressed surprise at the suggestion that politics were taken into consideration in deciding in what newspapers these advertisements should be inserted, he seems to have forgotten the admissions which, since he has been a Member of the House, has been more than once made from that Bench. Some years ago, the distribution of advertisements was looked upon as one of the spoils of office; for with the event of a new Government, a new list of newspapers to which the Government advertisements were to be given was drawn up in every large public Department. It is only within comparatively recent years that the system was abandoned in this
  1638
  country, and a general approved list of newspapers, irrespective of politics, to which Government advertisements were given, was adopted and sanctioned by the Treasury. The system which used to be recognised in this country, and is now abandoned, is still in full force in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman says he is responsible for what he calls the principle involved in the Minute; but he went on to say that the Local Government Board had full discretion in the matter. It is with a very large amount of discrimination and discretion that the principle involved in the Minute of the right hon. Gentleman is applied in Ireland. It is applied in such a way that a considerable number of narrowly circulating newspapers are kept in existence. There are a number of small papers in Ireland which could not continue without the subsidy which is given to them by means of public money, partly through the Local Government Board. But I object to the passing of this Vote without distinctive challenge on wide grounds. The Local Government Board is charged with the duty of looking after the administration of the Poor Law in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman justifies the dismissal of the Cork Board of Guardians and their displacement by three salaried officers on the ground that the Board neglected their duty. My charge against the Local Government Board is that it neglects its duty as a Board. Its administration is not only of an autocratic but of a very selfish character. One would suppose that the chief care of the officers of the Local Government Board was to secure themselves in the salaries which they draw, and that the duties which they are supposed to discharge are matters of a very slight importance in comparison. Of the £39,000 or £40,000 which is asked for £31,000 is set down for salaries. If the Local Government Board in Ireland had discharged its duty to the poor people their condition would be very different. One of the well recognised and fundamental principles of the Poor Law administration in this country is proper classification and separation of the inmates of the workhouse. I invite any one to inspect some of the workhouses in the West of Ireland. There he will find there is no classification whatsoever worthy of the name. It is perfectly true that there is

  1639
  a division of the sexes. The adult males are separated from the adult females, but the playground used by the children of both sexes is also used by the insane females. The Local Government Board has had its attention directed to the point year after year for the last 10 years, and yet the same bad system continues. Take the case of the food of the people. There is a Return in the Library of the House, which I moved for some years ago, and which sets forth the amount of food and its kind in each of the unions in Ireland. The quantities shown in that Return are startling. I have had a rough analysis or commutation made of the amount of nutritive elements in the quantities of food allowed to the poor people, and I am assured by competent medical authorities that the supply of nitrogen and carbon in the bread and milk allowed is not sufficient to keep an adult person in normal health even without any labour at all. The people in the workhouses, especially in the West, are kept on so low a scale of diet that it is marvellous how they continue to live at all. The condition of the people is deplorable, not only in regard to food and want of classification, but also in regard to the life they lead in these institutions. To see men wandering about aimlessly and hopelessly unoccupied from morning to night is something shocking. You have Inspectors whose duty it is to see to the condition of these people. What have these Inspectors ever reported about the want of occupation? Not a word. Another branch of the Poor Law administration is the supply of medicines to the poor. In this Vote you ask for salaries for Medical Inspectors. I should suppose one of the elementary duties of these Medical Inspectors is to see that the medicines are what they ought to be. I submit that that is an absolute impossibility, at any rate in some cases. I hold in my hand a list of the prices which one Board of Guardians have recently accepted as contract prices for the supply of drugs to the workhouses, and also a list of the prices charged for the same articles at the Apothecaries' Hall, where the prices are regarded as trustworthy and standard. For spirits of ammonia the Apothecaries' Hall charge 3s. a lb., but the drug is supplied to the Board of Guardians in
  1640
  question at 1s. per lb. Camphor linament is charged for at the Apothecaries' Hall at the rate of 2s. 8d. per lb., but it is supplied to the Guardians at 8d. per lb. Cod liver oil is supplied by contract at 2s. 6d., whereas at the Apothecaries' Hall the charge is 6s. Mercury pills cost 2s. 8d. per lb. at the Apothecaries' Hall, but under contract the charge is 10d. per lb. The charges in the case of ointment are respectively 2s. 6d. and 1s. The fact is that what the contractor supplies are inferior or spoiled articles which are of no value whatever for remedial purposes. Connected with this matter is another: the places at many of the dispensaries in which the drugs are kept are quite unfitted for the purpose. Many of them are exceedingly damp, and the Local Government Board Inspectors seem to take absolutely no notice of the condition of the places. Even when the drugs have lost all their virtue they are dispensed. Again, I would like to say a word as to the removal of paupers of Irish birth from Great Britain to Ireland, while there is no corresponding relief for Ireland in the case of English people who have got into Irish workhouses. What is the use of the Reports made upon this subject if the Government is never to be moved. Over and over again the Local Government Board has reported upon the extreme grievance on this particular point under which Ireland suffers. The Chief Secretary has admitted the grievance in this House within the last month. The Attorney General for Ireland has admitted the grievance, yet we have a continuance of it. The grievance has been removed in England and Scotland, but Ireland is still left to suffer in the matter. In a workhouse in my own constituency there is a family of persons. There are five children, not one of whom was born in Ireland; and yet, because the father happened to be born in Ireland—he was employed in Deptford—the wife and these children, who were left in Glasgow, were transported to the charge of the Letterkenny Union. The injustice of that is recognised by the Government, but they decline to bring forward any measure to put a stop to it. The poor of Ireland are utterly neglected by the Local Government Board. For the reasons I have mentioned I cannot allow this Vote to pass without any challenge. I,

  1641
  therefore, beg to move to reduce Item A by the sum of £2,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Salaries and Wages, be reduced by £2,000."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
  DR. TANNER: There are one or two points in connection with this Vote I desire to refer to. Colonel Speight is the Inspector of the Board told off to attend the Cork Union. Upon the occasion of his visits to the City he always frequents the most Conservative places. He takes up his quarters at one of the Conservative Clubs in the City, and dates his letters from there. It would be much more decent if an official paid by all parties took up his quarters at a more fitting place. The salaries of four Medical Inspectors are asked for in the Vote. I cannot help thinking one Medical Inspector could do all the work. What is the use of engaging four Medical Inspectors who all live in Dublin, and only leave that city upon very special occasions indeed. It is ridiculous to draw such salaries for medical inspection. I can speak with emphasis from my own experience when I say that usually when these Inspectors come down to a locality their work is practically nil. They have nothing to do. They come as a matter of form and ceremony, and they sit in a chair by the Chairman of the Board for half-an-hour, and then they go back again, having done their duty for that day. I am really convinced that two if not one Medical Inspector would be sufficient for all the Poor Law business. Then, again, there are the Engineering Inspectors and the Assistant Engineer Inspector. What their duties are I scarely know, for we never meet them anywhere. I am happy in the acquaintance of one of these gentlemen, and I know that he has a fair salary, and that he has other business. Two of these Inspectors get £600 between thorn and their expenses being paid, but it is simply ridiculous that this money should be paid for doing no work. I cannot but think that if some inquisition were made into these Estimates we should find that many of these salaries are simply means by which return is made for services rendered to
  1642
  the Government or the Tory Party in the past, and there is ample verge for largely cutting down expenditure. Certainly, I am at one with my hon. Friend who has moved in this matter. I know that a number of these gentlemen are enormously overpaid, with little or nothing to do. I can only speak now as an ex-Poor Law Guardian, for my occupation is gone, the right hon. Gentleman having suppressed our Board, but I can say that during a four years' attendance on the Cork Board I do not recollect the attendance of an Engineering Inspector, and the only occasion when I have found one at work was recently at Limerick. Something certainly ought to be done in the way of retrenchment under this Vote. With two Inspectors drawing £300 each I do not think it can be necessary to appoint a temporary Assistant Engineering Inspector at £100. I am convinced that this Vote covers a great waste of public money, money which is simply paid away for the purpose of keeping Toryism alive in Ireland. It is a feeble and unsuccessful attempt too. I sincerely hope that full light will be thrown upon this matter, and that the English people will come to understand it.
  Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITHrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  (7.10.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 182; Noes 118.—(Div. List, No. 187.)
  Question put accordingly, "That Item A, Salaries and Wages, be reduced by £2,000."
  (7.20.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 124; Noes 186.—(Div. List, No. 188.)
  Whereupon Mr. WILLIAM HENEY SMITH rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Original Question be now put."
  Original Question put accordingly,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £102,002, 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

  1643
  Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board in Ireland, including various Grants in Aid of Local Taxation,"
  and agreed to.
  2. Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £24,661, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works in Ireland."
  MR. PARNELL: I think the system under which this Vote is left to be explained and decided by the Secretary to the Treasury is a very injurious one to the very important interests which are dealt with in Ireland by the Board of Works. The Secretary to the Treasury is, from the nature of his position, unable to devote that attention to questions connected with the Irish Board of Works that might be expected from officials on the spot, and we always feel that in pressing him for information, that although we have to acknowledge his uniform courtesy and his willingness to do the best he can, yet that his good intentions do not cover his failure to deal with important subjects in a manner to which they are justly entitled. The responsibility of the Treasury, of course, in reference to matters connected with public works is great and important. I do not criticise the right of the Treasury to be represented on this Department to the fullest extent, but I think that an arrangement which practically leaves the whole care of this Department to the right hon. Gentleman, and the defence of its work and proceedings to him, is most faulty and not entirely to the advantage of the Board of Works, preventing a satisfactory result being arrived at. The Government of Ireland is a government by Boards. We are the most be-Boarded country in the world, and instead of having all these Boards represented by the Chief Secretary and the Secretary to the Treasury, we require, at least, two or three Ministers whose duty it should be to deal with the important subjects that come under the consideration of Parliament in connection with these Boards. This is especially true as regards the Board of
  1644
  Works, the Government Engineering Department for Ireland. Ireland is a country which requires greater attention, greater knowledge, and capacity in an Engineering Department than any country with which I am acquainted, owing to the backwardness of its resources, the total want of development of industrial works, and other circumstances, with which the Committee have been made familiar from time to time. We have a very good illustration of the want of attention and want of knowledge on this Board in what has not happened,—we have had no introduction or explanation of this Vote. This is a Vote for £37,000 for the salaries of this Government Engineering Board, to which is entrusted such important matters as the direction and construction of sea harbours, piers for fishery purposes, the issue of loans to tenants under the Land Act for the improvement of their holdings, and, further, the direction, to a very large extent, of the policy involved in the construction of Light Railways in Ireland. Yet we have had not a word of introduction or explanation from the Chief Secretary or the Secretary to the Treasury. I should have thought that on the occasion of introducing this very interesting subject, a subject which the Chief Secretary has specially marked as his own, the discussion of the expenses of this Engineering Board, which has for its duty the superintendence of these works for the improvement of the industrial resources of Ireland, upon which the Chief Secretary counts so much, we should have had some general statement as to the work of the past 12 months. But we are left absolutely to pass the Vote without any explanation or information as to the current year, except such as is contained in this small paper which has boon issued. We are without information on these three important subjects, to which I have alluded, the erection of fishery piers, loans to tenants for the improvement of their holdings, and the intention of the Government as to the construction of Light Railways and Tramways in Ireland. Now, I am not myself competent to go into any of these subjects, for the simple reason that I am without information. I know something of the Board of Works in times past, I

  1645
  know something of its failures in reference to particular works that have come under my knowledge, but again and again we have complained strongly of the total absence of information with which we are asked to approach this Vote, cither from documents or statement by the official charged with getting the Vote through the House. With regard to the question of Fishery Piers and Harbours, of which I shall have to say something in detail by-and-by, I want to say generally that I think it would be most desirable if the Chief Secretary would obtain some information for the House before next Session, so that we may know what we are about. Ho has placed in the Land Purchase Bill a clause of a very vague and nebulous character relating to fishing in the West of Ireland, of a skeleton character, which I suppose is intended to be filled in, and I earnestly hope that in the interval before we have this Bill before us, he will take steps to inform himself and this House as to the capacity of the Irish coasts for the development of sea fisheries, and as to the necessity which exists for the extension of work begun in 1883, and for which a sum of £250,000 was voted by Parliament for fishing piers and harbours, how far the work has been successful for the object in view, how far the money has been properly spent. I would suggest that he should appoint a Royal Commission for obtaining this information, by evidence taken on different parts of the coasts, so that when we meet again Parliament may have a record of the work of the Department. I would also suggest that proposals for this subject should be kept apart from other matters in the Purchase Bill, and dealt with free from political excitement and prejudice. The development of sea fisheries in Ireland is a matter of enormous importance to the country, and it is an object upon which Imperial money might be advantageously laid out, judiciously and after suitable inquiry. A proposal of the kind might result in benefit to the country and satisfaction to this House. It is a subject removed from Party politics, and one which, if the Government obtained full and necessary information, might well be dealt with in the coming Session. With regard to the
  1646
  Board of Works, and its failures from an engineering point of view, I regret, I exceedingly dislike, to be obliged to attack by name any officials in Ireland connected with the Board, and I do not propose to do so on the present occasion. I desire to hurt nobody's feelings, but I state, as a fact which has been abundantly proved, that the Board of Works has failed, both in design and in execution, with regard to the works entrusted to its care, and the money of Parliament has been scandalously wasted in a fashion which, as regards those instances which have come under my knowledge, appears to me most extraordinary and unreasonable. It is impossible to suppose that the mistakes of the Board are entirely due to ignorance, and I am driven to believe that the incapacity is due to a want of care on the part of the permanent officials, who are directly accountable to none, who have no representation in this House, and who, from long habit, have become careless as to the result of their actions. They simply sit in their office, make proposals, and draw plans, without any regard whatever to the actual local conditions, which ought to be considered before any engineering works are undertaken. I would instance two cases, with which I am well acquainted, as examples of the statement I have made as to incapacity or negligence in fulfilling the first duty of an Engineering Board. Let me take the example of Arklow Harbour, in County Wicklow. For the improvement of the fishery pier there Parliament in 1882 or 1883 voted a sum of £35,000. The result of that expenditure may be indicated by stating that where, according to the Admiralty charts, there was a depth of 20ft. of water at low tide before the expenditure, there is now only a depth of 4½ft. So your £35,000 have been spent in diminishing the depth of water at the entrance of the harbour by 15 or 16 feet, or at the rate of something over £2,000 for every foot shall owed. I believe this is the result going on all round the coast to a greater or less extent. It has certainly been the case with regard to the Harbour of Grey-stones, another example in County Wicklow. This harbour, before the expenditure of £13,000, had a depth of five or six feet at low tide, but a pier

  1647
  was built out into the sea, and the result has been to turn what was before pretty safe anchorage for small coasters into dry land. But, as I say, we are without information as to the expenditure of £250,000 upon fishery piers and harbours, of which Greystones is one. The Board of Works takes very good care not to give us this information in this Return of four pages put before us. They deprive us of the means of checking the conclusions they come to that the works are in good order, and that they have fulfilled the objects for which they were erected. The Return issued by the Board states that they have built 39 harbours and nine boat slips. The depth of water at low spring tides at the pier heads is given, but in 33 out of the 48 works the ground is dry at low spring tides at the heads of the piers. In eight of them there is a depth of from two to four feet, in eight a depth of from four to six feet, four from six to eight feet, one from eight to 10 feet, four from 10 to 12 feet, and one from 12 to 14 feet. So that out of the total number there are only 18 of sufficient depth to admit the ordinary class of fishing boats. In 33 there is no water at all at low spring tides, and in eight only a depth of from two to four feet, so that in 41 cases, the works are perfectly useless for the purpose for which they were projected. The Committee ought to be informed what is the state of things before more money is spent, and I hope that the Secretary to the Treasury will be able to mention some of the practical advantages which the fishermen and boatowners have gained by these works. So far as my information goes, the practical advantage is non-existent. There is too much reason to fear that this large sum of £250,000 has gone the way of the rest of the expenditure entrusted to the Board of Works in past years in works to a large extent useless, and often mischievous. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Before I put this reduction, I must point out that this is a Vote for the personnel of the office of the Board of Works, on which it is perfectly relevant to discuss the organisation and administration of the office; but there is a special Vote for the works themselves,
  1648
  and, therefore, to examine the details of the works, would not be relevant to the Vote.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £23,661, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  MR. PARNELL: I may be allowed to explain that the object of my remarks, with regard to the works, was to impeach the designs of the engineers of the Board of Works. The construction of the works had probably been sound, and the materials good, but I chiefly complained of the selection of the sites and the designs adopted by the Board as unsuitable, and made without the knowledge of the local effect of the action of the tides, waves, and winds. I respectfully submit that, as far as the engineers of the Board of Works are concerned, I should be in order in discussing the policy of the designs, for which they are responsible, and that I should not be in order in discussing it on the question of the actual provision of the money for erecting the works in those places.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I perfectly understood the purport of the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I did not interrupt him, because I thought ho did keep within the scope of the Vote. My observation just now was to prevent, by anticipation, discussion travelling outside the Vote.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): I have no reason to complain of the tone and manner in which the hon. Member has brought forward this question. It may be that some better plan might be found than that of making the Secretary to the Treasury answer for the Board of Works in Ireland. That is a question of policy which has been present in the minds of the Government for some time, and possibly arrangements might be made which would give the Government the assistance of some one with more detailed knowledge of the works of the Board than the Secretary to the Treasury can have. The hon. Member has

  1649
  just referred to Arklow, and he stated that formerly there were 20 feet of water where now there is much less. I have examined the Papers, and endeavoured to obtain the best information I could, both as to the condition of things "which existed formerly, and that which exists now, and I think the facts show that before this pier was built, there was often very little water for boats coming into the harbour. I am glad to have the hon. Member's testimony that the work has been well constructed, and he has neither found fault with the material nor the construction. He makes complaint of the design and the situation. At the time when these plans were put forward, according to the information I have obtained, there was considerable local opposition to the building of the north groyne. The Board of Works, it is only fair to say, adhered to the opinion that a north groyne was necessary, so as to make a certain amount of scour from the river; and I am not prepared to say that the information I have received from them leads me to the conclusion that there will not be, from time to time, some bar made outside the harbour, but so far as the entrance to the harbour is concerned, I believe the position of matters is very much improved. The Board of Works have consistently adhered to the view that a north groyne is necessary to complete the work, and that it would enormously improve the entrance to the harbour.
  MR. PARNELL: Will you build it?
  *MR. JACKSON: Under the Special Act, which the hon. Gentleman has quoted, there is a certain amount to be applied; and the Act contains a clause that, if the expenditure includes a certain sum, any additional expenditure shall be borne by the locality. From time to time there have been negotiations with the view to obtain for the locality authority to go on with the work.
  MR. PARNELL: The right hon. Gentleman perhaps knows that the locality were prepared to go on with a certain portion of the work. Was ever any proposal made to the locality to accept the whole burden rendered neces-
  1650
  sary by the engineering failure of the Board of Works?
  *MR. JACKSON: I do not want to go too much into detail; but I am under the impression that that statement is not quite correct. I think there has been a suggestion made—
  MR. PARNELL: Not by the Treasury.
  *MR. JACKSON: As is known, there are on the spot blocks of concrete which clearly belong to the harbour works, and if it had been possible, while the works were in construction, to have utilised part of the plant of the contractor who built the main pier, no doubt a saving would have been effected as compared with what would be the case now, if these blocks were utilised. I believe the estimated value of the blocks is something like £4,000 or £5,000, and in all probability, according to the best information I can obtain, £4,000 or £5,000 additional would about cover the cost of building the north groyne. I hope it may be found possible in some way to complete this work, because we are entirely at one that this north groyne would be a great advantage and ought to be constructed. And it would, I think, have been constructed in the first instance had it not been for the local opposition. The hon. Member has referred to Greystones. I am willing to admit frankly that the work at Greystones has not been successful. I make the admission at once, because I honestly believe that it ought to be made; and, I believe, the Board of Works would be quite willing that I should make that admission. There have been difficulties, which some people, perhaps judging by the light of subsequent events, say should have been foreseen. With reference to the harbour at Greystones, I would remind the Committee that there has been a tremendous movement of shingle. I may note that the railroad at the top of the cliff has been taken further inland, the company finding it cheaper to undertake that work than to protect the cliff from the action of the sea.
  MR. PARNELL: The movement of shingle has been always going on.
  *MR. JACKSON: I know that some people hold the view that this movement of shingle ought to have been ascertained and appreciated at the time. I say comparatively little about that, because I do not believe I have got a very good answer. At the same time, I think there is this to be said, that the movement of shingle has been much more severe than was contemplated at the time, as evidenced by the removal of the railroad. As regards Greystones, I have done what I could to make myself acquainted with the facts. I have met the hon. Member for the division on the spot. I heard what the local people had to say, and the Board of Works suggested that a temporary groyne, such as may be seen round the south coast of England, should be thrown out, as a defence against the shingle tilting up. On the part of the Treasury, I sanctioned the expenditure for that; but the people of the locality objected to the work, on the ground that it would interfere with their fishing nets. The work was, therefore, abandoned. I make no complaint of the local opposition, because, if the people haul their nets along the coast in pursuit of their fishing industry, there is no doubt that such a work would be, to some extent, injurious. The question is, What is to be done? The Board of Works say there is only one course to be taken, and that is, to build another pier or groyne, so as to check the movement of the shingle. That is estimated to cost about £7,000; and I have been for some time endeavouring to make the best arrangements I could. I do not hesitate to say that I was sanguine of getting help from the locality at one time, but I have not been successful in that. I have been in communication with the Irish Government, who have a surplus at their disposal and I may say that I have obtained the sanction of the Irish Government to the expenditure on this groyne, and I hope that may prove successful. I have shown the Committee, I think, that, notwithstanding want of knowledge in such matters, I have endeavoured to do the best I could to remedy what, lam bound
  1652
  to admit, has been an unsuccessful work. I do not say the same about Arklow, be cause, as far as I can judge after visiting it, the work is a substantial work, and I hope that, if it be possible to build the north groyne, we may have a great improvement there. The hon. Member referred to the account which was presented to the House with a view of giving it full and detailed particulars on the expenditure of those fishery piers under the Sea Fisheries Fund, and he has criticised rather severely the design and situation of those piers. It is only fair to the Board of Works that I should say that, as far as the responsibility of that Board is concerned, it is entirely limited to carrying out the works approved by by the Committee, because, as the hon. Member will have noticed, it is stated that the arrangement was, that the Fisheries Commissioners should recommend the sites, the works being carried out by the Board of Works. I believe it to be the fact that in all those schemes the action of the Board of Works has been limited to the preparation of the plans and designs for works to be erected on sites selected by the Fisheries Commissioner. Those plans and designs had to receive the approval of the Fisheries Commissioners before they were carried into effect; and when this approval was given the work was carried out under the control and superintendence of the Board of Works. I would here draw the attention of the Committee to a point which I cannot but feel redounds greatly to the credit of the Board of Works, and it is with regard to the manner in which they have carried out the works entrusted to them within the total amount of the Estimate. Everyone who understands anything about the matter will, I think, admit that large estimates for works connected with marine structures are necessarily of a somewhat hazardous character, and that it not unfrequently happens that works of this kind, especially when carried out on an extensive scale, as has been the case here, are not carried out within the estimates. In this particular case, however, the total original cost was estimated to be £239,215. These works have been carried out and completed, except in the case of four works which have since been inserted at a cost which would

  1653
  bring up the total estimate to £240,000. The Board of Works have done things that were not included in the original estimate, hut which were found to be desirable during- the progress of the works originally sanctioned. This additional work has cost nearly £20,000, yet it has all been done within the sum originally estimated. I have had some experience in carrying out marine estimates, and I repeat that from my experience it redounds to the credit of the Board of Works that they have been able to curry out those works practically within the estimates. Of course, there have been savings in some cases and excesses in others; but, taking them altogether, the works have practically-been completed within the amount originally estimated. The hon. Member has called attention to the fact that a considerable number of these piers were dry at the entrance during low water. I may state that, according to the information given to me, out of 40 fishing piers in Scotland there are only two which have any water at low water in spring tides. I can also speak from my own knowledge of a good many places in England where a considerable amount of fishing is carried on there is also no water at the piers at low tides. I do not, however, believe that this fact seriously interferes with the fishing interest.
  MR. PARNELL: Were those piers in Scotland carried out at the public expense?
  *MR. JACKSON: They were carried out by means of money voted by Parliament; but I was going to show, in answer to the hon. Gentleman, that if it foe a fact there is no water at some of these piers at low water at spring tides, this is not a condition which is at all unusual or exceptional, inasmuch as in many other districts the same condition of things appertains, and that notwithstanding the fishing which is carried on is reasonably successful. I think I have now answered the several points raised by the hon. Member. I hope I have given him satisfactory replies with regard to Grey-stones, and also with regard to Arklow,
  1654
  and that with regard to the carrying out of the works recommended by the Fisheries Commission. The Board of Works deserve not blame but credit for having effected those works within the original estimates and with but comparatively little complaint.
  MR. PARNELL: What about the light railways?
  *MR. JACKSON: I beg the hon. Member's pardon; I must accept the proposition put by the hon. Gentleman that it is desirable that something should be said with regard to them. I would, however, point out that I have already stated in answer to the hon. Member for Longford that the right time for making a statement with reference to the light railways would be on the discussion of the Vote for which the sum of £50,000 is provided. That is the only reason why a statement on the subject has not been made to-night. (8.25.)
  MR. CORBET: There are one or two points which have been touched upon by the Secretary to the Treasury about which I desire to say a word. He dwelt very much upon what he thought was the fact that the people of Arklow opposed the plans of the Board of Works. Now, I have in my hand a Memorial from the shipowners, merchants, and traders of Arklow, addressed to the Board of Works, and in it they say the plans of the Board of Works were objected to by a few people who were not of much account, and pray that—
  "When a reference is made to you from the House of Commons or elsewhere, you will, in the interest of all concerned, and in justice to the guarantors, who were instrumental in getting the grant and loan, adhere to your original plan and, if any slight change is made, instead of abolishing the north groyne, raise it about two feet higher and insert in it a post to allow vessels to remain fast."
  Yet the right hon. Gentleman stated that the reason why the north groyne was not made was that the people of Arklow opposed it. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to complete the harbour at Arklow on the plan originally made. He stated just now that there were between £4,000 and £5,000 worth of concrete blocks

  1655
  unused. Those blocks are lying upon the shore now, and in addition to this loss there was £5,000 spent on the repair of the breakwater before it was more than half finished. My contention is that the £4,000 or £5,000 spent uselessly in making these blocks and the £5,000 spent in repairing the damage done would have been ample to complete the harbour according to the original scheme. Not a stone of the North Groyne has been laid. In fact, the debris of the old construction lies as an obstruction in the fair way, and it is a peril to the boats on coming in and going out. The people there are very heavily weighted by the £20,000 they guaranteed to pay, and seeing that almost £10,000 of the money provided in the first instance has become derelict, I do think the Treasury ought to complete the harbour according to the original design. After the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with the subject of Greystones, it would be ungracious of me to make any comments on it. We have had to wait a good while and to make many applications; but I thank courtesy the right hon. Gentleman for the and the invariable interest he has shown in the matter. To return to Arklow, the harbour works were badly done in the first instance, and I myself have seen the water washing through and through the pier. The fact that it was necessary to spend £5,000 in repairs is proof enough of how badly the work was done in the first instance. Considering the great interests that are involved, Arklow being the principal fishing station on the East Coast, I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will make an effort to have the works completed in accordance with the original contract.
  MR. PINKERTON: The right hon. Gentleman said the responsibility of the Board of Works is confined to the plans and specifications.
  *MR. JACKSON: No, I did not say that. I said our responsibility was limited to preparing the plans which were approved by the Fishery Commission, and to carry out the works.
  MR. PINKERTON: Am I correct in understanding that the responsibility rests with the Board of Works of
  1656
  approving all the plans submitted to their consideration?
  *MR. JACKSON: Well, of making them.
  MR. PINKERTON: That is exactly the responsibility I wish to father on the Board of Works. I put a question on the Paper on Friday about Galway Harbour.
  *MR. JACKSON: Of course, the Harbour of Galway is not included in these Votes. It belongs to the Harbour Commissioners.
  MR. PINKERTON: The position of this Harbour Board is very curious. They have incurred a debt to the Board of Works, who have appointed a receiver, and, therefore, I think I am entitled to consider the action of the Board on this subject under this Vote. I find that in 1880 £45,000 was borrowed from the Board of Works. Two engineers submitted plans to the Galway Harbour Commissioners, and Mr. Price was selected to execute the work.
  *MR. JACKSON: I think the hon. Member is mistaken about that. The Harbour Commissioners employed an engineer to make plans. Those plans, were submitted to the Board of Works, and the Board of Works was asked to lend money. The Board had no responsibility for the design.
  MR. PINKERTON: I said two engineers were asked by the Commissioners. to supply plans, and Mr. Price was finally selected to act as engineer. Plans and specifications were submitted to the Board of Works and approved by them, and £45,000 were expended in constructing a harbour of a very peculiar character. A deep dock was constructed, but the water was 10 feet deeper than the entrance channel. We are told the Government are not to blame for harbours silting up, but at Galway they have neglected to take the precaution to provide any channel to the dock. The right hon. Gentleman is probably aware that the Galway Harbour Commissioners were not perfectly unanimous with regard to the propriety of expending this money, and that it was-only after the approval of the Board of Works was given that a resolution in

  1657
  favour of the expenditure was carried by a single vote. The expenditure has not benefited the town in the smallest possible degree; in fact, at the present moment, the Board of Works find it necessary to have a Receiver and to reduce the salaries of all the officials. In order to effect economy they have refused to sanction a grant of £40 for the lighting up of the harbour, and, as a consequence, several persons have recently been drowned in the dock. You have two courses open to you: you should either spend more money in deepening the channel, or relieve Galway of the payment of the debt. I do not hold the Government responsible for any silting up. There is a possibility of any harbour, however well constructed, silting up in consequence of the action of the waves. I know a harbour constructed under the Irish Parliament which is now a grazing field. But with regard to the Galway Harbour the Government have no excuse to offer, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman cither to indicate his intention of spending more money in deepening the channel, or of relieving the people from the responsibility of paying the debt.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I can corroborate all my hon. Friend has said, and I think I can give another reason why the Secretary to the Treasury should take the case of the Galway Harbour into consideration. The harbour is actually in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, or in other words of the Board of Works, of which he is the head. The dock was, to a great extent, executed as a relief work. It was commenced at a time when there was a great need of work in Ireland, and it was necessary there should be a large scheme of emigration from Galway or the provision of public works. The Harbour Commissioners built a really very fine dock considering the place, but they forgot the entrance. The dock is very nearly useless at present, but the thing could be easily remedied if the Secretary to the Treasury would make some effort to deepen the channel. The original grant has been expended, but certainly
  1658
  public money could not be better expended than in providing this channel. I have no connection with the Arklow Harbour, but the Secretary to the Treasury has admitted that something ought to be done there, and has expressed a strong wish to find a fund. The sum of £8,000 used to be voted annually out of Imperial Funds for harbours in Ireland: but unfortunately the late Mr. Blake, who took the deepest interest in the fisheries, trusting to the generosity of the Government, thought that if the £8,000 was stopped for two or three years the Government would renew it. But at that time the Treasury were a little too clever for Mr. Blake. They said we will give you £250,000 out of the Church Fund—a purely Irish Fund by the way—on condition that we are allowed to stop, the £8,000 which has been granted each year for the last 40 or 50 years. I believe Mr. Blake was under the impression that as soon as the £250,000' was spent the £8,000 would be renewed, and I think if the Secretary' to the Treasury will consult with the President of the Board of Trade (Sir M. Hicks Beach) he will find that that right hon. Gentleman was under the impression that the £8,000 ought to have been re-granted to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman certainly stated so in my hearing.
  THE CHAIRMAN: This is a subject which does not properly come under this Vote.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I was unfertile impression that the £8,000 was granted under the Board of Works Vote. [The CHAIRMAN: No.] The Secretary to the Treasury has dwelt at some length upon the exact responsibility of the Board of Works with regard to the plans of several harbours in Ireland. Experts differ as to how much water there should be at the head of the pier of a fishery harbour. If you can have eight or ten feet of water at low spring tide it is an overwhelming advantage, but, unfortunately, to secure that makes the harbour very much more expensive. I think the Secretary to the Treasury has under-estimated the Board's

  1659
  responsibility as to the plans and designs of harbours. I have not seen the original Papers in the case of the Grey-stones Harbour, but I do not think the Board of Works ever pointed out that the shingle would be a serious obstacle. In the case of a projected harbour some miles from Belmullet, the Board did point out that the shingle would prove a great obstacle, and as a consequence the harbour was abandoned. The Board of Works were extremely jealous in regard to the construction of fishery harbours. The Fishery Commissioners were very anxious to get an independent engineer to advise them with respect to designs, but the Board of Works would not recognise any engineer but their own. Not only that, but the Board detailed junior engineers to accompany the Fisheries Commissioners when choosing the location of the harbour, and one of these engineers would not give advice. He used to transmit his views to the Chief Engineer in Dublin, and then the Chief Engineer was willing to place plans and designs at the disposal of the Fishery Commissioners. Under these circumstances, surely the Board were responsible for all the engineering defects. Unless it can be shown—and I do not think it can be—that in spite of the remonstrances of the Board's engineers the Fishery Commissioners insisted upon locating a harbour in a given place, the Board are clearly responsible. Now, there is a pier at Claddagh, the repair of which is estimated at £100. The head of the pier has settled down, and there is a large crack in the pier. The work of repairing will, in my opinion, cost more than £100, but it ought to be commenced at once. Surely the Secretary to the Treasury could find the money out of this £38,000. When this Government came into Office the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord R. Churchill) spoke of simultaneity in the remedial measures which would be taken in Ireland and England. But the Government are not adopting such a policy. They are postponing the construction of harbours in Ireland, and I do not think there is any possibility of the harbours being completed during the tenure of Office of the present Government. If Parliament is really to do any-
  1660
  thing in this, I hope the Secretary to the Treasury will pay some attention to this part of the subject. I understand the Secretary to the Treasury deprecates discussion upon the subject of Light Railways on this Vote, and prefers that it should be deferred; and the right hon. Gentleman is so invariably courteous in all his business arrangements that, so far as I am personally concerned, I am ready to accede to his request, but I hope that we shall have due notice of the time when this subject is to be brought on, so that Irish Members may be able to take part in a discussion upon a subject in which much interest is felt. There is another point not of large importance, but important to the labouring classes, and it arises directly under this Vote, and that is, the expenses of engineering inspection in regard to the erection of labourers' cottages. The Board of Works is responsible for these expenses. The Secretary to the Treasury put the engineering expenses at about £2 10s., but they are really very much more, and I have seen vouchers for £4.
  THE CHAIRMAN: This is a matter which should come under the Local Government Vote, not the Board of Works.
  COLONEL NOLAN: The Board of Works find the engineers. If the Secretary to the Treasury agrees, then I will take the opportunity of raising the point on the Report of the Local Government Vote, but I hope Mr. Speaker will not then refer me back again to the Board of Works Vote. However, I will not continue my observations on that point now.
  MR. PARNELL: Just a word or two in reply to the right hon. Gentleman. He seemed to be under the apprehension that I had admitted that the materials used in the works at Arklow Harbour were suitable and the work well done; but in referring to the materials of which works had been constructed in Ireland, and in admitting they were good, I had in my mind works under the Fishery Piers Act for which £250,000 was voted—not the works at Arklow Harbour. It was in reference to a point of order you, Sir, raised that it would not be in order to go into the question of the construction

  1661
  of fishery piers, they having been constructed under a different Act to the works at Arklow Harbour. I have always maintained in the case of that harbour, and it is capable of proof, that the Board of Works committed great errors of judgment in the selection of site and in the method of construction adopted, owing to which the work either crumbled or was washed away. A concrete method was adopted and based upon a foundation of the most insecure character, and the repairs were executed with the most faulty and rotten material. In regard to what the right hon. Gentleman hopes may happen so far as Arklow Harbour is concerned, considering the years during which this matter has been brought forward from time to time, I think we are entitled to something more definite. The right hon. Gentleman hopes something will be done. Has he made up his mind that something can be done? The position of things is this—the Treasury refuses to make any further grant for the works, and says the whole of the expense should be borne by the locality. The locality, however, has refused to bear the whole of the expense, and asks that, at least, the Treasury should make a proportionate contribution to the cost. Up to the present time the Treasury has refused, and I wish to know whether the expression of a hope by the right hon. Gentleman that something may be done indicates that the Treasury are considering the desirability of departing from this resolution, and of taking any further share in the work.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that in July last year I asked him whether he would consent to a Return giving particulars as to the amount of £4,000,000 advanced by the Board of Works for the improvement of landed property under 10 & 11 Vict., cap. 32. Is he now, as then, unable to assent to this Return being laid upon the Table? He has held out some hope that he would assent to it, though not in the form in which I asked for it. I know, from matters that came to my knowledge when in Ireland, that there is a very strong feeling that a good deal of this money has been wasted in the same way as advances for harbours.
  1662
  I feel that we should have the means of following the allocation of this money in the manner I suggested in my question on July 4 last year, that we should have a Return, giving the names and addresses of persons to whom advances have been made, the amounts, the dates and various particulars, so that we may, to a certain extent, follow this money. If the right hon. Gentleman says that the period of time over which this would extend is too long; if he says he cannot go back over 40 years, but that he might go back for five or ten years, that is quite another matter; but if he would assent to that, probably it might meet our purpose. From the point of view of the National Exchequer, and as representing those who have shared in these advances, I do think we are entitled to this information, and I must press for a reply whether the right hon. Gentleman will assent to the Return in the form I have indicated, or in what amended form?
  MR. O'KEEFFE: As pertinent to the Vote under discussion, there are a few cases which have come under my observation in the South of Ireland which strongly confirm the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) as to the incompetence and neglect of the Board of Works. The city I have the honour to represent has in the course of two years expended £40,000 on the repair of a portion of the dock wall, necessary through originally faulty construction. Nearly every pier on that important water way, the Shannon, is in the most defective condition. The harbour of Foynes is admitted by the Board of Works to be full of mud.
  MR. JACKSON: I do not wish to prevent the hon. Gentleman speaking on this subject; but the harbour at Foynes, as I dare say the hon. Member is aware, is not under the Board of Works.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: I pass from that. Passing westward, I may mention that there are two piers built at considerable expense, which, together with that at Tarbert, are fast crumbling into decay and will become ruins. At Kilrush, a rising town which has

  1663
  recently been brought into connection with two railway systems, the pier accommodation is quite inadequate for the requirements of the district, and I am glad to see from the papers that application is about to be made for £30,000 for improving the harbour and allowing deep draught vessels to come in and discharge their cargoes. On the sea-coast we have ample evidence that the designs of the Board of Works have had no more success in the South of Ireland than elsewhere. There is another matter which has, I suppose, given rise to a hundred questions to the right hon. Gentleman—the works at Killaloe. The Board of Conservators complain that these works, carried out on what is known as Mr. Bateman's system, will result in great danger to important fishery rights in. the Shannon, valued at £40,000 a year.
  THE CHAIRMAN: This will come under the Vote for Works, in Class I.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: The subject is so important that I will take another opportunity of referring to it.
  MR. FLYNN: North, East, and West the right hon. Gentleman has had his attention directed to examples of Board of Works mismanagement, and I have to refer to a notable instance in the South, in the often-mentioned Ballycotton Pier. I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman went very much out of his way to visit this pier, and doubtless he has all the circumstances in relation to the question in his mind. I will not go into these at length. If the Board of Works had paid attention, as it was their duty to do, to the complaints of the Grand Jury through their County Inspector as to the cause of the defects observable, there would have been no necessity for the visit of the right hon. Gentleman, or for the long newspaper correspondence and the long series of communications between the Board of Works and the County Grand Jury. With that sweet reasonableness that characterises him in this House the right hon. Gentleman will understand me when I say that the Grand Jury of the county could not have brought forward their complaints simply out of opposition to the Government, because the Grand Jury is an essentially
  1664
  conservative body, nominated, not elected, and not amenable to popular influence. When the pier was about to be handed over to the Grand Jury, that body, in accordance with their duty, sent down the County Inspector, Mr. Kirkby, to examine and report upon the pier. After a careful and lengthened investigation of many days, Mr. Kirkby reported against the Grand Jury taking over the work from the Board of Works. He reported the work defective in many respects, and advised the county not to incur the responsibility of repair and maintenance. Then the Board of Works, instead of sending down a competent man to overhaul the work, assumed a most truculent attitude, and insisted that the Grand Jury should take over the pier nolens volens, disregarding the Report of their Inspector. They went so far as to discredit Mr. Kirkby's professional capacity. They said he was utterly incapable of judging the character of marine works, and that he went outside and beyond his ordinary duties in making the Report he did. But, eventually, when they sent Mr. Wolffe Barry, the eminent marine engineer, he, after careful inquiry, found that the complaints made were well-founded to a very great extent, and that the defects indicated by Mr. Kirkby existed; that the platform of the pier had subsided owing to faulty construction, and that violent south-westerly gales had washed away the facing. Mr. Wolffe Barry made various recommendations, among others, that galvanised iron bands should strengthen the head of the pier. He also reported that the remains of the old pier should be removed if the pier was to be of any advantage to the fishing boats. Well, this went on for a couple of years, and I and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork addressed frequent questions to the right hon. Gentleman, and I felt almost ashamed of pressing the right hon. Gentleman so pertinaciously. But, of course, we felt that it would be too bad if a public work intended to be a benefit for a large fishing population should fall into ruin owing to the reluctance of the Board of Works to move in the matter. At last there was this Report of Mr. Wolffe Barry, which, to a great extent, confirmed the Report of the Grand Jury Inspector, and I hope this will be a lesson

  1665
  to the Board of Works to pay attention to the representations of Grand Juries and Local Authorities on these matters, though I am not sanguine that, constituted as it is, the Board of "Works will ever learn from experience. I understand that the Treasury are about to advance a further sum for the removal of the debris of the old pier, which has long been a source of danger, and I hope the Secretary to the Treasury, in whom we have some confidence in these matters, will induce the Board of Works to carry out the other recommendations of Mr. Wolffe Barry.
  MR. NOLAN: There is a matter I desire to press upon the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope it may not be in vain; and that is the application made by the Commissioners for the erection of a pier at Blackrock, Dundalk. I know that before I entered Parliament a memorial was addressed to the Board of Works on the subject, but not a word have the people heard about it. I may say I have visited the spot, and I know the necessity for the fishing industry. There are, I am given to understand, no natural difficulties to encounter; the bottom is good, and there is a ledge of rocks which acts as a natural breakwater. I may mention also, though it does not concern this Vote, that a pier would be of great advantage for the launching of the lifeboat there, which is manned by the fishermen of the locality. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would consent to receive a deputation on the subject.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: We have every reason to reciprocate the courtesy which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury invariably extends towards Members on these Benches—a style which is not always adopted by his Colleagues. The right hon. Gentleman has the happy knack of giving the soft answer which turns away wrath, but I should like to remind him that soft words butter no parsley, and we shall feel bound to torture him if he will not give us some sort of satisfaction with reference to the work of the body in Ireland, of which at this moment he is the
  1666
  legislative chief. One is getting sick of calling attention to the case of Arklow Harbour, but it is necessary to do so again because we can got no satisfactory answer to our inquiries. I happen to be interested in the harbour, because I am one of those unfortunate individuals who have to pay for the incapacity of the Irish Board of Works. Money expended on this harbour has been practically thrown into the sea. We have no desire to obstruct the business of the House, or to waste time, but I think we have a legitimate and strong ground of complaint in regard to the incapacity of the Irish Board of Works. I should like to show how these things are done in Ireland, because I think the action of this Board will constitute a strong case for allowing us to manage our own affairs. Take, for instance, the case of the canal between Lough Allen and Lough Macucan. It was considered necessary to join these two lakes by a canal, and the Board of Works took the job in hand. The canal, as a result, was so exceedingly well constructed that at certain points there is no water at all, and at other points there is so much water that it is impossible for boats to pass underneath the bridges, while along the greater part of the canal there is no tow-path at all. Yet the people of the county through which the canal passes have to pay taxation for money which has been literally thrown away. This affords a very good exemplification of the beauty, wisdom, and common sense of British rule in Ireland. I hope that the Secretary to the Treasury will give his attention to the matters I have referred to.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I desire to complain of the excessive character of the charges made by engineers in connection with the inspection of labourers' cottages. This is mainly owing to engineers being brought from a distance, and I would suggest that in future, wherever it is possible, local engineers should be employed. This would tend to promote the erection of labourers' cottages in districts in Ireland in which they are much required.
  MR. CLANCY: I wish to join in the expressions which have

  1667
  fallen from my hon. Friend with reference to the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, but I fear he is too apt to padlock the bag containing the public resources, and to refuse to sanction expenditure when that might be advantageously allowed. Now I wish especially to refer to the case of Howth Harbour, as well as to that of Galway Harbour. I have been given to understand that when once a vessel gets into Galway Harbour it cannot get out again, while if it gets into Howth Harbour it cannot remain there. A year ago, by urgent pressure, I induced the right hon. Gentleman to make a grant for the purpose of clearing out the harbour, but only the entrance has been cleared, and the Government have refused to grant a single penny further to complete the work. The result is that though boats can now enter the harbour at low tide, they are, when once inside, in greater danger of being shipwrecked than they would be outside. This is no exaggeration, for I have frequently visited the harbour, which is in my constituency. I would suggest that out of the unappropriated proceeds of the extra duty on whisky a sum of £5,000 or £6,000 should be granted, in order to make this harbour safe for the vessels which have to use it. With regard to Galway Harbour, the policy of the Board of Works has been of a mean cheese-paring character. The low-paid officials have had their salaries reduced, while the highly-paid officials have had their salaries left untouched. Surely this policy of reduction should begin at the top instead of at the bottom. It is a humiliation to me and to the other Irish Members to be coming here to ask that these works shall be carried out, works which surely we ought to be able to deal with without coming to a House, three-fourths of the Members of which have no knowledge of the localities concerned. I hope that a future Parliament will remedy that state of things.
  DR. TANNER: I wish to call attention to the case of Ballycotton Pier, which is in a very bad and
  1668
  dangerous condition. I was pleased that the right hon. Gentleman thought it right to visit the pier. Of course, he is not personally responsible for the jobbery which has taken place in connection with this pier, but I think we are entitled to remonstrate with him on his inaction. Would the right hon. Gentleman be surprised to hear that the centre of the pier has now become a lobster ground? It was originally filled up with earth and gravel, instead of with proper material; that filling up has been washed away, and, as I have already said, it has now become a bed for crabs and lobsters. Captain Mount, a large landed proprietor and a Conservative, who contributed a considerable sum towards the cost of erecting the pier, has again and again expressed his dissatisfaction with the jobbery which has been carried on in connection with the pier. The pier at this moment is nobody's child. The Board of Works assert that they have handed it over to the Grand Jury of the county, but that body will have nothing to do with the structure, and so the pier is going from bad to worse, and the shore is obstructed by large numbers of concrete blocks which are lying about. Is it right, is it honest, is it decent, that this state of things should continue to exist? I say that the pier affords a strong argument in favour of Home Rule, for it shows how badly things are mismanaged under the present system. The entrance to the harbour, too, is rendered very dangerous for vessels coming in, and I think it would therefore be as well if the pier were removed to another point. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that we expect an answer with regard to that projecting structure. There are other points, but if we were to speak about all the matters which come in connection with this Vote, and to deal with them in detail instead of discussing them in a single sitting, we should be carrying on the Debate for a week. When the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Mayo and myself

  1669
  went over one of these structures built by the Board of Works we thought it almost impossible to land upon it when a high sea was running, and yet the poor people who have to use the pier have, to a large measure, to live from hand to mouth, and ought to have that faulty structure remedied. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to try and do something for these poor people. Can he not do something for the people of Antrim by the erection of some structure in Antrim Bay? There is no doubt that if adequate shelter wore provided there a great deal of good would accrue to the population, who are year after year plunged in the most abject destitution. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take a trip to the Western coast of Ireland, because although I do not desire to see his Government remain in office I think that even when in opposition he may do something to remedy the condition of affairs which exists there, and which, to a great extent, is owing to the action of Her Majesty's Government. I do not like to make an appeal to any of Her Majesty's Ministers, I prefer fighting them; but I think they ought to extend some sort of recognition to what is going on in the West of Ireland, and that we ought to have some sort of response from the Chief Secretary when these matters are brought to his cognisance. I hope he will not only be advised on these matters, but will look into them personally, because if he did that instead of taking all his light and leading from his colleagues or subordinates he would, I think, try and do better for Ireland and the Irish people.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to call attention to what is being done in the Phœnix Park, Dublin, where, as we have heard to-night, £3,000 has had to be paid for the loss of a number of cows through pleuro-pneumonia. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury will remember that I protested against the grazing going on in the Phœnix Park, and also against the railing off of a portion of the Park in order to provide the hay for the Lord Lieutenant's deer. Cows are not allowed in the London Parks, and I ask why should they not be excluded from the
  1670
  Phœnix Park? They have already this year occasioned a loss of £3,000, and I am sorry to hear that some of them belong to the Chief Secretary, in addition to those of the Lord Lieutenant; and while these animals were suffering from pleuro-pneumonia the Chief Secretary was answering in the most accurate manner in this House the questions put by Irish Members, forgetful of his property in Phœnix Park.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I deny that.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman thinks he had no cows there, but we are informed that a number of valuable animals in the Park belonged to the right hon. Gentleman. I think it is undoubtedly a wise and proper thing on the part of the Board of Works to have taken away the Chief Secretary and Viceroy's cows and dealt with them as they have done, because Dublin has undoubtedly been a centre for foot-and-mouth disease and pleuro-pneumonia in Ireland. If cows are unnecessary in the London Parks they cannot be necessary in the Phœnix Park, and therefore they ought to be entirely removed, especially when the recent enormous loss is considered. Why, Sir, £3,000 is more than the British Government ever made out of cows in Ireland since the Act of Union. The other matter on which I have to protest is the railing off of so many acres of the park to provide hay for the deer. By making this enclosure the Government are shutting out the people—a thing which they do not do in London. Everybody admits that it may be necessary to put a railing round the young trees for protection, railings which can be withdrawn as the trees increase in size, but to rail off four or five acres of public land in order to grow hay for the Lord Lieutenant's deer is an infringement on the public right. Why should not the ground be used by the public, by the gentlemen who play polo, by the Horse Artillery, the police, and the cricketers? But you have no right to rail in a portion of the park for the use of the Lord Lieutenant's deer. I

  1671
  protest against these continuous invasions of the public right in the Phœnix Park, and assert that they ought not to be permitted any longer.
  MR. P. J. POWER: I should like to have some information from the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the pier at Tramore. The pier which which was constructed there, and for which a considerable sum was locally subscribed, was partially swept away. A second pier was erected on the same site by the Government, but it was so badly constructed that in a few years it also was swept away; and now we have a fishing and watering place which is without a pier. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will pay us a visit at Tramore, where we shall be able to show him that, although an amount of local money was subscribed for the pier, it has been, through bad engineering, swept away twice. We do not want a pier on the same site, but we think we have a right to ask that a pier should be erected. I think I shall have the advocacy of the hon. Member on my right, because I remember that I went out for a sail with him off Tramore, and I remember his using very strong language with respect to the way in which we had to land, owing to the default of the Board of Works. If the right hon. Gentleman has any information to give, we should be very glad to hear it.
  MR. JACKSON: I will endeavour, so far as I can, to answer some of the questions put in the course of this discussion. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway has raised a question as to the Galway Harbour, which he says has not been put into a proper condition, and that the channel has not been cleared out by the Board of Works. I do not think that any blame attaches to the Board of Works with regard to that harbour. They undoubtedly approved the plans submitted to them, but their approval related simply to the
  1672
  proposed construction of the works and the question of security. The plans were prepared by the engineer of the Harbour Commissioners, and all the Board of Works did was to accept those plans as showing that the design was likely to be effectual, and upon that they granted a certain sum of money. But during the progress of the works, the Harbour Commissioners took it upon themselves to enlarge the harbour, and they did this without communication with the Board of Works, subsequently coming to the Board for a further sum of £3,000. As far as I can see, the work was substantially well done.
  COLONEL NOLAN: There is no passage.
  *MR. JACKSON: But that was not the fault of the Board of Works. The money advanced by the Board of Works was expended, and there was not sufficient left to pay for all that had to be done. I am under the impression the plan might be adopted by the Board of Works of sending the engineer nearest to the locality to look after these cottages. It is possible that engineers might have to be sent considerable distances, and even be sent on two or three occasions. It must be borne in mind that the responsibility rests with the Board of Works> and they cannot delegate it or shift it from their own shoulders. If they advanced money on these cottages, and the inspection turned out to be different from what they expected, they would be responsible. The hon. Member for Limerick referred to several piers, one of which was damaged by a recent storm, and the cost of the repair of which will be about £100. Reference has been made to Ballycotton. I have heard of Ballycotton many times. I have visited Ballycotton, and I have taken a great interest in it from time to time. It was at the request of hon. Members sitting below the Gangway, that I agreed to have a special inquiry made into the condition of Ballycotton Pier, and, as the Committee knows,

  1673
  that inspection took place. Well, certain recommendations have been made. One was, that the clearing away of the remains of the old pier and the general deepening of the harbour would be of advantage in all probability. I must say, as regards that, no blame attaches to the Board of Works, because that work was not included in the original contract. After being on the spot, and after listening to the recommendations of the engineer who went with me, and after careful inspection of the whole work, I came to the conclusion that it was desirable to clear away the old pier, and sanction has been given to that work; while, at the same time, sanction has been given to clearing away some of the rocks so as to afford more shelter. The hon. Member for Mid Cork has given it as his opinion that the pier head is in course of destruction. Mr. Wolfe Barry made the recommendation that it should be surrounded with iron bands. I am bound to say that the Board of Works is presided over by a gentleman of very large experience in the protection of these works, and the engineer to the Board is a gentleman who has had exceptional experience in regard to marine engineering; and I am bound to pay some attention to their Reports and opinions. They are responsible, and they accept the responsibility. When this Report was made, they pressed upon me very strongly that the pier should he given a chance, and they were willing to stake their professional reputation that this pier would suffer no harm. It seemed to me only fair that an opportunity should be given to test their opinion. I have had from time to time some careful measurements taken and Reports made as to the condition of this pier, and I will tell the Committee the latest one that I have received. It must be borne in mind that the stone coping at the top of the pier is about 35 feet above the base, and, therefore, any settlement of the pier under the water must in that height make a very great difference in any crack which may have taken place
  1674
  on the surface. Now, there is one joint in the stone coping which is taken as the test one; and on the 1st February, 1889, this joint, No. 4, was open 3⅝ inches; and on the 1st January, 1890, it was 3⅞ inches, showing, therefore, that the only difference in a year was nearly a quarter of an inch. I am still assured by the engineers to the Board of Works that they are still willing to accept the full responsibility for the condition of the pier. And so convinced am I that I have had no hesitation in accepting their representations. If there were the slightest indication that it was necessary to apply the iron bands which have been recommended by Mr. Wolfe Barry, of course there would not be the smallest hesitation in applying them. I do not think the hon. Member for Cork need be under any apprehension whatever as to the solidity of the structure. An hon. Member spoke of Blackrock, but I do not carry in my mind the information which would enable me to answer him. I will make some inquiry as to whether any representations have been made or not. The hon. Member for North Dublin referred again to Howth Harbour. I believe the entrance to the harbour is now quite satisfactory, and boats can get in and out. It must be borne in mind that Howth is a very large harbour, and was originally built for the Mail Boat Service, though it has long ceased to be used for that purpose. I have visited it, and I know all about it; and I do not hesitate to say, so far as I can judge, there is ample accommodation for boats to go in and out with perfect safety. I must say frankly that I do not think the case of Howth Harbour calls for any largo expenditure, because I think it is most admirably adapted to its purposes. I can call to mind a great many harbours in England which are used for boats, and which have not nearly so much water in them at low water as Howth. I do not think there is a strong case for clearing out Howth Harbour. Now, Sir, the hon. Member for Longford referred to the case of the cows in Phœnix Park. I am aware that on former occasions he has called attention to that matter. With regard to Phœnix Park, I may say that the Board of Works have acted throughout in consultation with the Veterinary Department. Whatever

  1675
  evils have been caused have been clue to the fact that the whole of the park was treated as one field. I think that during the prevalence of cattle disease it will be necessary to give up keeping cows in the park. At the same time, I think that a few deer add to the appearance of the park and to the enjoyment of those who frequent it; and in order that we may keep the deer, it is necessary to grow a little hay for their food during the winter. Attention has been drawn to Tramore Pier. With regard to that, I can only say that it is impossible for me to carry in my mind all the information which may be asked for. I have, however, made a note of what has fallen from the hon. Member for Waterford. The hon. Member for Cork referred to Arklow Harbour, and with regard to that I have to remind him that the Government have undertaken to complete the works there if the Local Authority will become responsible for a loan of £5,000. We thought at the time we made it, and we still think, that that was a reasonable proposal, and we had thought that means might have been found to induce the locality to accept the proposal. The estimated cost of the works is £10,000.
  DR. TANNER: I spoke also of a pier on the west coast that is of no use at all, and urged that something should be done to meet the wants and wishes of the inhabitants of a very poor locality.
  MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member spoke of having seen the waves running 15 feet high. I should imagine he was there on a very stormy day. I have, however, made a note of his observations, and full consideration will be given to the subject. I trust now that hon. Members will allow the Vote to be taken.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman—and on this subject we ought, I think, to hear the opinion of the Conservative Members—whether he will consider the propriety of restoring to us the £8,000 a year we used to get for harbours?
  MR. JACKSON: That is rather a large order.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I do not want a pledge; but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to go carefully into the matter and make inquiries of the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade (Sir M. Hicks Beach), who was Chief Secretary for Ireland when this money was given.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The point the hon. Member is referring to comes under another Vote.
  MR. TUITEI desire to draw attention to the terms on which the Board of Works advance loans to the national teachers. At present, re-payment must be completed within 38 years, and that imposes a very heavy burden on the teacher, because if he retires in 30 or 35 years' time, he has to pay the whole cost of the building. I would suggest that the time should be extended to 61 years, and that the rate of interest should be reduced from 5 per cent, to 4 per cent. Another matter is that out of 8,000 teachers in Ireland, there are only 703 by whom this Act has been taken advantage of. That looks bad for the administration of the Act. I trust the Secretary to the Treasury will make a note of this; and that if it is possible to amend or alter the practice he will do it, and so confer a great boon upon the Irish teachers and advance the cause of education. It is hard to expect a school teacher to teach properly if he has not a proper dwelling. With regard to the sureties for loans and the rules under the Board of Works Act, at present it is insisted on that one of the school managers shall be one of the sureties. There is nothing, however, in the Act of 1875 requiring that. The Act says that any three solvent persons are sufficient, and surely that ought to be sufficient for the Treasury in advancing loans. The present system is very hard on a manager who, perhaps, is already a surety for two or three schools, and has two or three other heavy charges on him in his parish. I have been requested to bring this matter under the notice of the House, and I think it is one worthy of the attention of the right hon. Gentleman.
  DR. TANNER: Before we take a Division on the Vote, I should like to express my strong disapprobation of the conduct of the engineer, to whom reference has been made, who draws such a large salary. I believe he has wilfully misled the right hon. Gentle man as to the pier in question. The right hon. Gentleman, when on the spot, must have noticed the pier riddled about in all directions with long bolts. As I have said, the centre of the pier has become a nesting ground for lobsters. I want the right hon. Gentleman to explain that away, and I must say I think you should have better officers to go into these matters and should insist on having better work done. As to Kinsale, it is one of the largest fishing ports in the South-West of Ireland, but the people have had a bad fishing year, and have not been able to pay up as they would have been had the season been a hotter one. I desire to ask that some allowance should be made for the bad season in dealing with these people. And now, in the interests of my constituents, I desire to ask a question as to the projected tramway from Macroom to—
  THE CHAIRMAN: That question does not come under this Vote.
  DR. TANNER: It was the Public Works Report that misled me. As to the Assistant Surveyors of Buildings, I wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to pay attention to the grievances of these men. They occupy the position of the class of senior clerks in the English Office. They have long hours and very onerous duties, and they require special qualifications for the duties; they require to know all about buildings, and to be thoroughly up in architect's work, and it is very difficult for them to fulfil all the conditions at a very low rate of remuneration. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will condescend to give me an answer on this subject. Then, as to the protection of ancient
  1678
  monuments. There is an Inspector on the Vote who is paid £50 a year. But he draws also £200 a year as an Inspector of National Monuments, Now, I must say that this gentleman—who is a very respectable person, and whom once I used to know—does not do his duty. I regret to have to say it; but having had during the course of last year to be at Athenry, one of the most interesting places in Ireland for anyone who takes an interest in antiquarian remains to visit, I noticed how necessary it was that efficient inspection should be made. Athenry is the old station of the Kings, as its name signifies. There is an old castle there, one of the most perfect of its kind, but it requires two or three supports here and there to keep it from crumbling away. There is an old abbey at Athenry containing the tombs of several illustrious persons. One is the tomb of a great King, and is in a wonderful state of preservation, considering the atmospheric disadvantages it has had to bear. As I say, I know the gentleman who is Inspector of Monuments, and I think that if a representation were made to him he would see that the necessary steps are taken to preserve these monuments.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I think it desirable that the Government should be allowed to get the Vote. I should like to ask what is the exact amount advanced by the Government which has cost them £9,000 to lend under the Land Improvement Act. It seems to me that it costs £1 to advance 10s.
  MR. JACKSON: I can give the hon. Member no information on the matter. As to the Assistant Surveyors I have heard no complaint, but I will make inquiries. I have no knowledge of the circumstances referred to in relations to Kinsale Pier; and in connection with the ancient monuments referred to, I may point out that the subject does not come directly under the cognisance of the Board of Works.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  3. £3,935, to complete the sum for the Record Office, Ireland.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: This includes, I think, an item for the Brehon Laws and Annals of Ulster, for which for the last 10 years there has been practically a standing Vote, though, so far as I can make out, we are no nearer the conclusion of this interesting work. Is it not curious that some of the most difficult translations in the Gaelic language should be in the hands of an Englishman who does not know a word about Irish?
  THE CHAIRMAN: These matters do not arise under the present Vote. One of them comes under the Stationery Vote.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: That is another Estimate?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
  DR. TANNER: In the case of this Vote, as of all others where you have a decrease, it is obtained by cutting down some of the smaller salaries. The Government would act more wisely if they cut down some of the large salaries. At the same time, there is a great deal too much money spent under this Vote. All the work of this office could be done by three or four clerks. This is a mediæval remain, and the sooner it is done away with the better.
  *MR. JACKSON: I think the hon. Member is entirely wrong. There is a reduction of £2 this year, as compared with last.
  Vote agreed to.
  4. Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum not exceeding £10,617, he 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 Department of the Registrar General of Births, &c, and the Expenses of the Collection of Agricultural and other Statistics in Ireland."
  COLONEL NOLAN: At the bottom of page 188 hon. Members will
  1680
  see that for the registration of all births and deaths in Ireland and the marriages of Roman Catholics £3,200 is taken, while for the marriages of Protestants there is £1,690 required. I do not begrudge the £1,690 for the registration of Protestant marriages, because I know the work is done well, but what I want to point out is the fact that the Catholic marriages in Ireland are very badly registered; indeed, a very considerable percentage of such marriages are not registered at all. The Irish statistics with regard to marriages are quite wrong. There is a large discrepancy between the English and Scotch and the Irish percentage of marriages in proportion to the births and deaths. The explanation of this is that many Irish marriages are not registered. The fee for registering a marriage is only 6d., and as a consequence the registration in the West and South of Ireland is somewhat carelessly performed. This is a very important matter, and I trust it will receive the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: We were promised last year and the year before that something would be done under this Vote towards sifting the prices alleged to be paid in Ireland for agricultural produce, but, as far as I can glean, the Government have not done a ha'porth to reduce the extraordinary sums they say the Irish people get for oats and potatoes, beans, barley, and so on. When the Irish peasants are receiving 3d. or 4d. a stone for their potatoes, the price is given in the Registrar General's Return at 6d. or 7d. Last year the Chief Secretary promised that he would look into the question of price, and we pointed out that it was not the price obtained in the Dublin Market that was to be taken into account, because one of the misfortunes of the Irish peasant's positions is that the moment he cuts his oats or wheat and thrashes it on the field, he has to sell it right off. The man has no barn, and he

  1681
  is not able to wait until he can take it to market. It is a very serious matter if it is represented to the Land Commissioners and other bodies that the price of wheat is 5s. more a barrel than it really is. The Land Commissioners have, to a large extent, been depending upon the Statistical Returns published by this Department. I am far from saying the Department is acting in any way in aid of the landlord party in the country. My belief is that these gentlemen are inclined to act fairly, but what I do submit is they do not give the peasant's market price in compiling those statistics, but simply the average price obtained in the large cities. I trust we shall hear from the Government what steps they have taken since last year to correct the very inflamed views held by the Department on this point. If anyone will turn to Thom's Directory for 1890, he will find the value of crops given as follows:—Leinster, £1,700,000; Munster, £1,300,000; Ulster, £3,100,000; Connaught, £873,000. Upon this estimate the Irish Secretary founds the argument that Ireland is extremely prosperous. We do not propose to delay this Vote; but we trust the right hon. Gentleman will avail himself of the opportunity of informing us what has been done in this matter.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. and learned Gentleman accurately recollects that I made some statement in this House on a previous occasion with regard to the statistics; but the statement was not made in relation to this Vote; it was really in connection with the Act of 1887. The Land Department very rightly came to the conclusion that they could not modify rents merely upon the general statistics obtained by the Registrar General, and they devised machinery to collect agricultural prices in order to enable them to carry out the provisions of that Act, which machinery has been since brought to the point of perfection. The Land Commissioners have kept in mind the undoubted value of the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman on a former occasion, and they have endeavoured to find out not merely what are the prices obtained in Dublin, Cork, Belfast, and
  1682
  other large towns, but what are the prices realised in the market towns of Ireland. I am not now in possession of the full details, as the question does not arise on this Vote; but, if the question is raised on the Land Commission Vote, I shall be most happy to give any information I can.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I protest against statements being made at Primrose League meetings and at other meetings that the price of hay in Ireland is 45s. a ton, when, as a matter of fact, the peasants cannot get more than 20s. a ton. I suppose that in London you pay 30s. or 40s. a ton for coal, but you can buy coal at the pit's mouth for 4s. 6d. a ton. I have known the price Is. 10d. a ton. When you are paying a high price for coal in London you are inclined to suppose that the Northumberland miners are drinking champagne and living in affluence. It is exactly the same in Ireland when agricultural prices are taken from central markets. By the time the produce has reached the central market it has passed through the hands of a number of middlemen, all of whom have to make a profit.
  DR. TANNER: It ought to be borne in mind that most of the statistics to which my hon. and learned Friend has just alluded come from very unreliable sources. Most of the statistics come from the Royal Irish Constabulary—notably the District Inspectors—and I want to know whether there is any portion of this money paid to these policemen?
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I observe that there is a note against the entry relating to these clerks to the effect that they are to be replaced by Lower Division clerks. It would appear as if this office is in a strange state of transition. It might be a matter of some interest to know in what direction the Government propose to move in the matter of re-organisation. Their action may probably throw light on the mode in which they intend to deal with other Departments in the country. I would point out that the Secretary of

  1683
  this Commission is in a very exceptional position, because once in every 10 years he is concerned with Census work. Instead of being paid for the work actually done every 10 years he receives every year an annual sum of £100 or £200. I submit that nothing can be more ridiculous than to pay years in advance for services which are rendered only one year in 10. I wish to know whether it is a fact that this gentleman's salary is again to be raised in consideration of the Census work he takes in hand this year. If any increase of salary be allowed to him on this account it will be a distinct departure from an engagement entered into, I think, by the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Another point respecting the Registrar General is, I think, worthy of attention. Last year a Bill was passed inflicting all kinds of pains and penalties on officers in the public service who divulged official secrets. The Act was presumably intended for general and impartial application. Well, Sir, the Registrar General, for whose pay provision is made in this Vote, was proved in a rather notorious case a fortnight or three weeks ago to have volunteered information of a confidential character in regard to what took place in his own office. Dr. Grimshaw, it was deposed at the trial I speak of, volunteered the information that the Constabulary were making inquiries in the office with regard to the supposed wife of a medical man. I should like to know how it is an officer in that position can volunteer information of a private character, with perfect impunity, in view of the very stringent provisions of the Act to which I refer. This certainly is a matter which deserves consideration if at any time an application is made for an increase of this gentleman's salary.
  MR. JACKSON: It was clearly understood that when the salary of the gentleman who looks after the Census was increased it was to cover the work of superintending the Census. Of course, the work connected with the Census is only for one year. It is the case, as the hon. Member has said, that one second class clerk, two third class clerks, and two transcribers are to be replaced by Lower Division clerks. As
  1684
  to the point the hon. Member has raised about the divulging of official secrets, I have no knowledge of the circumstances.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Has any application been made for an increase in the salary of the Registrar General or the Secretary?
  MR. JACKSON: No, Sir; I think not.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the great discrepancy in the fee paid for Catholic marriages and that paid for Protestant marriages, and will ho say something about the accuracy of the Returns of the Catholic marriages in Ireland?
  DR. TANNER: I want to know how much of this Vote goes into the pockets of the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary? If I do not get an answer I regret to say I shall have to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot give any expression of opinion worth having as to the value of the statistics relating to Catholic marriages. I have no ground for supposing that they are of a less trustworthy character than the statistics in general. As to the question of the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), the police who act as enumerators get a small sum for stationery and postage, and when they have to sleep away from barracks they get 2s. or 3s. for their expenses. Of course, travelling expenses are also paid out of the Vote.
  MR. CHILDERS: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to inform him that the statistics of Roman Catholic marriages in Ireland are recognised universally as far less accurate than the statistics of Protestant marriages? Whatever the cause may be he will find this stated in every book of comparative vital statistics, and I hope he will look into the question and correct what is really a scandal.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I wish to point out that the reason is that the fee paid is very small. It is no fault of the Catholic clergy, but I have every possible reason to suppose that the statistics are grossly inaccurate.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Perhaps, Sir, it is due to the fact that the Irish Members do not sufficiently preach against early marriages. Of course these foreign people do not understand the matter, or they would probably concur with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in thinking that the great fault of the Irish people is that they marry too young. I contend that the statistics demonstrate that there are fewer marriages among the Irish people, and that they marry at a riper age than any other people under the sun. Perhaps if the unfortunate priests got another halfpenny or penny for returning the marriages the result might be the valuable one of clearing away the obscuration of the mind of the poor Irish Secretary.
  DR. TANNER: I must take exception to any of this money being put at the disposal of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and I shall take every opportunity of pointing out to this House the way in which these men are overpaid. On Vote after Vote you find that these men are bribed to do their nauseous work in Ireland. It is a great and hideous mistake to employ the police to do this work. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,260.
  Motion made, and Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £9,357, be granted for the said Service,"—(Dr. Tanner,)—put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  5. £11,507, to complete the sum for the Valuation and Boundary Survey, Ireland.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: How is it that in this office the first class and other clerks are not treated in the same way as in the Registrar General's Office?
  MR. JACKSON: I am afraid I cannot answer that question straight off.
  Vote agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported to-morrow.
  Committee to sit again to-morrow.

COLONIAL COURTS OF ADMIRALTY BILL [LORDS].—(No. 260.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid): This Order has been on the Paper on many occasions, and now, seeing that Her Majesty's Government do not think it necessary to give us any information as to the Bill, and perhaps the time is inconvenient for doing so, I must object to the Bill being proceeded with.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): The Bill is simply to remove certain difficulties of administration that have occurred in the colonies, and to simplify procedure.
  DR. TANNER: I object.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: At this period of the Session an objection raised at this stage may be fatal. It seems to me the Bill is a very useful one, and I hope the hon. Member will allow his objections to remain for discusssion in Committee.
  DR. TANNER: As a general rule I am desirous of meeting the wishes of right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench, but there is really nothing to prevent this Bill, if it is a useful and non-contentious measure, being set down as a first Order to-morrow or on Thursday. I certainly object to its being taken after midnight.
  Objection being taken to Further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE BILL (LORDS.)

  (No. 230.) SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR HORACE DAVEY: May I ask if there is any intention to go on with this Bill?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I had hoped to do so. I think the hon. and learned

  1687
  Gentleman will agree with me that it is a useful measure, and I do not gather that any great objection is raised. It is a matter for the consideration of the House whether the Second Reading should be taken now.
  SIR HORACE DAVEY: I do not object, and I should be glad to have the Bill read a second time, but I think an undertaking was given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton that there should be an opportunity for a Second Reading Debate.
  Second Reading deferred till this day.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Resolution [11th July], reported.
  "That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891, the sum of £11,850,436, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  Resolution agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Courtney, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Jackson.

  PURCHASE OF LAND AND CONGESTED DISTRICTS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 199.)
  Order for Committee read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order be discharged and the Bill withdrawn."—(Mr. Secretary Jackson.)
  MR. SEXTON: On this Motion I beg to ask what provision the Government intend to make in respect of the financial matters with which the Bill deals? Is it intended to make the sum to which Ireland is entitled available for Irish purposes, and, if so, will the purpose be carried out by a clause in the Appropriation Bill, or in some other legislative proposal during the present Session?
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: May I also ask what is the intention of the Government with regard to the £1,500,000 of Church surplus money now liberated, and whether in this or in next Session, the Government have considered the possibility or desirability of making some provision towards educational objects in Ireland, especially University education?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It would be well for the Chief Secretary, who has a taste for writing epitaphs, to be present at the solemn obsequies of this measure, and I am sure we would give him a suitable reception on the touching occasion. My hon. Friend has raised a question of the greatest interest, as, indeed, he intimated his intention of doing, and I think it is only right an answer should be given before this Bill is allowed to depart into the limbo of abandoned measures. A sum of £45,000 is liberated, and we are entitled to know what is to become of the money. To use the classic phrase of the First Lord, this money was "earmarked," and we should like to know what is to become of this money after being subjected to this operation. At the same time we should like some statement whether the Government intend to re-introduce the Bill in the same form as now. I think if the Bill is to be re-proposed, the Government will be ill-advised unless they take into account the objections of the Irish Members to the Irish Church surplus being collared in this way. If the Government intend, for Imperial purposes, to pass this Bill in another Session, they should provide Imperial funds for the purpose of buying out Irish landlords, not use Irish local resources for that object.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's,): I did not hear the commencement of the hon. and learned Member's observations, but in regard to what I did hear, I may say I have undertaken that in any case £40,000 shall go to Ireland in the course of the present financial year. The hon. Member has my pledge to that effect, and he may rely upon it being carried out. I do not undertake that the money shall be secured to Ireland in the course of the present Session, but in the course of the present financial year.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Order discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  TITHE RENT-CHARGE RECOVERY AND REDEMPTION BILL.—(No. 169.)
  Order for Committee read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

SAVINGS BANKS BILL.—(No. 240.)

  SECOND READING,
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I hope the Government will disabuse their mind of the idea that this is a non-contentious Bill. The Irish Members have very strong objections to it.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's, Hanover Square): I can assure the hon. Member that, so far as England and Scotland are concerned, the Bill is a non-contentious Bill. I have been able to remove the objections of English and Scotch Members, and I shall be very glad to confer with hon. Members from Ireland with a view to removing some of the objections they hold.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I only wish to express a hope that the Government will find themselves able to go on with the Bill, and pass it.
  MR. SEXTON: I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has spoken very reasonably, and I am not without hope that the objections of the Irish Members may be removed by reasonable Amendments.
  *MR. J. E. ELLIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the names of the Committee before taking the Second Reading?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I asked the deputation of Trustees I received the other day to provide me with three names to put into the Bill as respecting private banks, but I have not yet received any communication from them.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

LOCAL TAXATION (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) DUNKS BILL.—(No. 244.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I hope the House may understand that when this
  1690
  Bill is put down for Thursday they will have it in a form which will indicate the mind of the Government upon it. I think the Bill ought not to be postponed any longer, because the new proposals of the Government will require a little time for consideration.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I should be sorry to pledge myself to Thursday. The Government have considered the matter very carefully, and are anxious to avoid any fresh controversy. I hope to be able on Thursday, or, if not then, on Monday, to inform the House of the general nature of the proposals of the Government.
  Committee deferred till Thursday.

LOCAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 334.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  DR. TANNER: I object.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: This is a most useful Bill, introduced in the interest of the new tenant proprietors under the Ashbourne Act. It is a proposal entirely in the interest of small owners, and, much as I differ from the Attorney General for Ireland, I am forced to express my acknowledgement to him for this useful measure. Without pledging myself to details I think my hon. Friend would do well to allow the Second Reading to pass.
  MR. M. HEALY: I concur in all that has been said by my hon. relative. It is an excellent, Bill, and badly wanted by the small tenant owners.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: The fundamental principle of the Bill is unquestionably right, but it is different to anything which at present obtains in this country. It would be very useful to watch the operation of it, but at the same time there would be considerable inconvenience in having two systems working side by side. As applied to the whole of Ireland, there might be much to be said for the Bill, but, valuable as it may

  1691
  be, I do not think we are called upon to take the Second Reading without discussion ofter 12 o'clock.
  Second Reading deferred till tomorrow.

  FINANCIAL RELATIONS (ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND.)
  Order for Motion for Select Committee read.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I believe it is generally desired that progress should be made by the Committee, and if anything is to be done this Session, the Committee should be appointed without delay. I do not know that we shall be better able to proceed with the Motion another evening.
  MR. SEXTON: We desire the appointment of the Committee, but we desire also, to make some representations on the terms of reference. What the Welsh Members intend, I do not know, but for the discussion, not a long one, of points we desire to raise, I would ask that the Motion should be taken at an earlier hour.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Member must not understand me as making any engagement. I have no doubt objections might be met, and I may remind the hon. Member that discussion might be taken after 12 o'clock.
  MR. SEXTON: The objection to that is, that discussion may be terminated at any moment by any Member raising objection.
  MR. S. EVANS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will accept the Amendment standing in my name?
  Motion deferred to Thursday.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING LIFE SAVING APPLIANCES RULES.
  MR. C. WILSON (Hull, W.): The President of the Board of Trade is not in his place, but perhaps some other Member of the Government will inform us when we shall have an opportunity of discussing the Rules for Life Saving Appliances at Sea. There are one or two Amendments on the Paper, which
  1692
  I think the right hon. Gentleman has agreed to accept.
  *MR. JACKSON: The Motion is not moved.
  MR. C. WILSON: The President of the Board of Trade is now in his place, and I would ask him to say if he is prepared to accept any of the Amendments to the Rules on the Paper?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I doubt if this is in order, but I may simply say I am not prepared to accept the Amendment.
  MR. C. WILSON: Not the last one on the Paper?

  BIRSTALL WESLEY AN CHAPEL TRUST SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL. (No. 362.)
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Wednesday.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  On Motion for Adjournment.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask if the Government propose to take Wednesday next for Government business, and also whether it is a fact, as reported in the Press, that Lord Wolseley has been appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in Ireland, in succession to Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimar?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): I have not information on either point.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to give notice that if such appointment is made I will call the attention of the House to it before the end of the Session.
  DR. TANNER: I wish to ask whether the Government intend to make, or have made, any attempt to arrest the absconding Constable Palmer, as it now transpires that the steamer in which he travelled to New York has just arrived at that port?
  House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.

DEEDS OF ARRANGEMENT BILL. (No. 106.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
WESTERN AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION BILL.—(No. 184.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *THE SECRETARY of STATE FOB THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): My Lords, the Bill of which I ask your Lordships to grant a Second Reading is, with the exception of two clauses, which have been omitted, to which I shall soon call your attention, the same as that which your Lordships passed last year. The Bill went down to the House of Commons, but, owing to the lateness of the period of the Session, to the pressure of business, and to the threatened opposition on the ground that sufficient land was not reserved for the control of the Crown, Her Majesty's Government, though with regret, were unable to proceed with the Bill, and they withdrew it, on the pledge that it should be brought in at an. early period this Session, and then referred to a Select Committee, who should thoroughly consider and thresh out all the different questions arising upon the Bill. That pledge was redeemed, the Bill was read a second time, and was referred to a very strong Select Committee, who went most fully and thoroughly into all the matters that were brought before them. They had the advantage of hearing a considerable body of evidence, and amongst the witnesses who gave evidence before them were included the late Governor, Sir Frederick Broome, the future Governor, Sir William Robinson, who has already once administered the Government of the colony, and they also had the advantage of the evidence of two delegates from the colony, men of high standing and position, who were members of the Legislative Council, and were chosen from that Body to give evidence before the Committee, and to state the views of the
  1578
  Colonial Government. I think I need only now call your Lordships' attention to the two clauses which were, by the decision of the Committee, a decision subsequently approved by the House of Commons, omitted from this Bill. They were Clauses 4 and 8. By Clause 4 your Lordships will remember the control and management of land to the north of the 26th parallel of latitude was reserved to the Crown. The reasons why I pressed upon the colony this reservation, in spite of their wishes to the contrary, were embodied in a Despatch dated December 12, 1887; and perhaps your Lordships will allow me to read a passage from it. In that Despatch I pointed out that—
  "Representations have been already made to Her Majesty's Government urging that the northern portion of the Colony should not be placed under the unrestricted control of a Legislature elected by the present small population residing, for the most part, in the Southern districts. It might, therefore, not improbably happen that a measure for giving effect to the Resolution of the Legislative Council might not receive the assent of Parliament, and the wishes expressed in the colony would thus be frustrated."
  I am free to admit that it seemed to mo that the principle of granting responsible self-government to this colony was so important that I was ready to adopt any measure, not unreasonable in itself, which would disarm opposition. The restriction, as I stated last year in this House, did not appear to be unreasonable, though, as I also added, I personally did not believe there would be any danger that the land would be wasted or mismanaged. My chief reason for so thinking may be shortly stated as follows: It may be admitted that what Sir Charles Dilke calls "the noble dowry" which we gave to the colonies when we handed over to them the control of all their land, has been somewhat wasted and mismanaged. It may be admitted that the best mode of dealing with land for the benefit of the colony was not thoroughly understood, and could only be gained by experience; and that out-and-out sales of land at low prices no doubt did cause loss to the community and waste. But to those who find fault with Her Majesty's Government for handing over the control of so much land to the responsible Government, and who urge upon us that we ought to

  1579
  profit by the experience gained in the past, I would answer that if we look back to the history of the land question and of land management in these Australian colonies we shall find that the waste and mismanagement of land mainly took place in the earlier years of the life of these colonies, and when the land was under the control of the Crown, and before responsible Government was conceded. Since responsible Government has been given to the colonies, the Colonial Government have, with more or less success, improved the land system which previously prevailed, and they have largely diminished the waste resulting from such system. At all events, Western Australia has profited by the experience gained in the other colonies, and the Rules and Regulations which have been passed in that Colony for the management of the land are eminently calculated to favour emigration; the creation of agricultural areas; and the cultivation by small settlers occupying the land. The evidence given before the Committee in favour of this view, and also of some practical difficulties which would arise in the management of the lands in the northern district if reserved to the Crown, to which, perhaps, I had not given full weight, was so clear that, without a Division, they agreed to the omission of this fourth clause. This view, I may add, is in entire accord with the opinion of one who was most competent to form an opinion upon this point and one whose loss we so deeply deplore—I refer, of course, to Lord Carnarvon; and perhaps, in passing, your Lordships will allow me to say a few words in addition to those which Lord Rosebery spoke on Thursday last. Lord Carnarvon twice held the office of Secretary of State for the Colonies with dignity and with honour to himself and with great advantage to the colonies. I had the honour of twice serving under him when he was Secretary of State, and I can, therefore, speak undoubtedly and with certainty of the entire devotion that he gave to his work and the ability with which he administered that office. I can also speak of the great respect and esteem, I had almost said the affection, with which he was regarded by the colonists; and I can assure your Lordships that his death will be
  1580
  most deeply regretted by thousands of our fellow-subjects in all parts of Her Majesty's possessions. Lord Carnarvon said last year that if you give responsible Government to the colonies you must be prepared to give the Crown lands with it, and he very much doubted the desirability—and I rather think the noble Earl opposite rather doubted the desirability—of the reservation which, for the reasons I have stated, I thought it well to insert in the Bill of last year. There was one argument advanced—I think by the Earl of Derby—in favour of our reservation of land, which, no doubt, had weight; He pointed out that in his opinion the reservation of land north of the 26 parallel would materially simplify and facilitate the creation of a separate colony in the northern portion of the territory, which he then anticipated must take place in a few years. There would be considerable force in that view if it was likely that the separation would be so shortly effected. But the evidence given before the Committee distinctly pointed to this: that it must be many years before that separation can take place, if ever; and I would add that the great movement in the Australian Colonies towards federation has also, I think, militated against the chance of the northern portion of the colony being separated from the southern, and made into a separate colony. At all events, my Lords, I think that the matter has been most thoroughly examined into by the Committee; and, for these reasons, I trust your Lordships will not think fit to dissent from the omission of the fourth clause. With regard to the other clause (Clause 8), which provided that any Bill restricting emigration should be reserved for Her Majesty's pleasure, the omission of that clause was only decided by a majority of two in the Committee; but Her Majesty's Government decided that they would take the sense of the House of Commons on the matter find abide by their view of this clause; and, after Debate, the House of Commons affirmed the omission of the clause without, I think, a Division. I myself entirely concur in that decision, and I think the evidence that was brought before the Committee showed three things: first, that upon the introduction of responsible Government into a colony emigration has always increased, and that the increase has continued for many

  1581
  years; secondly, that the Colony of Western Australia has been one of the Colonies which has been most ready to promote immigration, and most' desirous to secure emigrants; and, thirdly, that this feeling in favour of immigration will be certainly increased and not diminished, because, as Lord Derby observed last year, every, immigrant who enters Western Australia will be regarded as an addition to the wealth, the resource's, and the development of the country. This being the case, it seemed to me un necessary to retain this clause, and un-desirabfe if unnecessary, because in no other case where responsible Government has been granted to a colony has such a clause been inserted. It has been admitted in both Houses that this Bill is of vital importance to the Colony of Western Australia, and I may add that it is most strongly supported by the other Australian Colonies. I trust, therefore, your Lordships will grant it a Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Knutsford.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBEELEY: My Lords, I wish simply to say that I am extremely glad the Bill has come to us in this shape. I think it is a decided improvement on the Bill of last year. With regard to the control of the Crown over the land, I will not again go over, what the noble Earl has already stated. My opinion was last year as, it is now, that it was entirely unnecessary and very impolitic to introduce the restrictions which the Bill of last year contained. The evidence given before the Committee of the House of Commons has shown very clearly what the feeling in Western Australia is on the subject; and even if I were of opinion that there I was some particular advantage to be gained from such a restriction, I should still strongly deprecate our introducing restrictions of that kind in face of the feeling in the colonies generally. With regard to the other matter of emigration, I may venture to [say the same thing as was said last year, namely, that it is entirely an illusion to suppose that the Colony of Western Australia will not favour emigration. On the contrary; for a long time they must look to immigration for their progress. When the time
  1582
  arrives for the Colony of Western Australia to have a large labouring population and a system of manufacturing industries like Victoria it may so happen that a feeling will grow up against the introduction of immigrant labour to compete with the labouring population of the colony. But if that time should come, and if that feeling should grow up, as it has grown up in other places, I feel perfectly certain that it would be impossible for Parliament or Government to interfere in the matter to override the feeling of the colony, and that such a clause as that in the Bill of last year would not in the least strengthen the position of the Government of the day. I therefore strongly approve of the alterations which have been made in the Bill, and am very glad to find that it now meets not only with the approval of the Government and the Party who support it, but also with the approval of many who think with me here and in the other House.
  *LORD NORTON: My Lords, as one who for a very long time was much engaged in what I may call the restoration of our colonial policy, I desire to address a few words of congratulation to the Secretary of State for the Colonies on his successful conduct of this Bill. Borne, the mistress of Empire in the old world, certainly did not show much acquaintance with the details of her distant provinces. The Romans, no doubt, cared little at home for the details of distant administration. I fancy a Roman senator troubled himself very little about the government of Dacia. But it did astonish me that legislators in England, the greatest modern mistress of Empire, should, in dealing with a matter of this sort, show so little acquaintance with the subject, as was shown in the Debates in the other House, and even in the Committee on the Bill. We do not make dependencies, as the Romans did, in distant parts of the world; we make extensions of Empire, settlements of fellow-subjects as free and with precisely the same rights as those at home. When I saw, both in the Debates of the other House and even in the Select Committee, the matter was discussed by many as if Western Australia was a Crown Colony, and as if they were not aware that this Bill only developed a Representative

  1583
  Government into a Responsible one, I was not surprised to hear the waste lands of the colony talked of as the patrimony of our people at home, and as if the right of dealing with waste lands was not just as much vested in the Government there as the right of dealing with common lands was vested in our Parliament here in England, both Governments being under the one Sovereign. I am, therefore, extremely glad that any restriction upon their perfect control of their own waste lands has been removed from the Bill; and I think, also, that the fears that the colony will pass Acts restricting English immigration, and that they may ill-treat the aborigines smack of the old Mother Country colonial policy, which for a time overlaid the free and successful colonisation by England of her earlier colonies. I can only say that I think now that the Bill as it has passed, almost, but not quite, free from those blots in the first Bill, does meet the wishes of the colonists, and does recognise the rights of responsible Government in Australia, besides consulting the best interests of the country at home. The Bill itself is, I think, exactly in the right shape, and not something in substitution for the Constitution drawn up by the colonists themselves. I, therefore, as one who has for a long time been engaged in the subject, do offer my hearty congratulations, and I consider that our thanks are due to the noble Secretary of State for the Colonies for the service he has done in conducting the passage of this Bill through Parliament to so satisfactory a conclusion.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.

RURAL POST OFFICE APPOINTMENTS.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY,in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government if they could not arrange for rural Post Office appointments being made by the General Post Office instead of by the Treasury and the County Members, said: My Lords, although recent events might suggest that this is a fitting time to ask Her Majesty's Government to in some
  1584
  measure free the General Post Office from the incubus of the Treasury, Twill on the present occasion confine myself to a minor point. It is now the practice that if a vacancy occurs in a country Post Office the Treasury are first communicated with; the Treasury then ask the County Member to nominate someone. Very often the County Member may not be acquainted with the circumstances of the case, of what the requirements may be, or suggest a really fitting appointment. Moreover, since the Secretary of the Treasury has been deprived of his patronage, and as patronage in general has been abolished by competitive examination, it is no use taking away the substance and preserving the shadow by giving to the County Members these small appointments. As I have said, the County Members are very often really unacquainted with the circumstances of the place; they may even reside at a great distance from it, and they are liable to give the appointments to some supporter of their own without regard to qualifications or circumstances. In addition to these hypothetical objections to the present system, I may as well give your Lordships instances from my own experience. Some years ago in a village in Cheshire there was no Post Office. I asked for one to be established. At the same time, I put up a small building in the centre of the village which I intended to be used for the Post Office. For some time I heard nothing more about the matter, and at last it turned out that the Post Office had been established in some other less convenient place, and the building has now been let for the purposes of the County Constabulary. The man who holds the Post Office is now desirous of throwing it up. I have been asked to build another house, but I declined, as I did so once, and no notice was taken of it in consequence of these Treasury and Post Office arrangements. "It would, in fact, be useless for anyone to build a house for a Post Office unless he is tolerably certain by communication with the Post Office through their Inspector that the house will be made use of. I will mention another case which occurred many years ago. A County Member wrote to me saying, "Your Post Office is vacant; I know nothing about it myself; tell me whom you recommend." I wrote back

  1585
  to him: "Please do not move until I settle it with the General Post Office." I then wrote to Sir John Tilley and said, "Why is this Post Office vacant? I think I ought to have been consulted first." He answered that "it was vacant because the person who was appointed to it had never gone there." I said it "had been managed by his sister, and had never been better managed; and the person appointed did not wish at present, for family reasons, to leave the neighbouring town; that his father and grandfather had long been supplying contracts for the Post Office, and did not deserve such summary treatment, and I asked to have things left as they were." But supposing this County Member had not been an acquaintance of mine, he might have appointed somebody else, and then there would have been an unnecessary complication. I hope, therefore, Her Majesty's Government will arrange that in future the General Post Office, through their Inspectors, will manage these matters and make the appointments. I can only speak of the Cheshire and North Wales district, but I wish to say that the Postmaster General and his Inspector have introduced a good many reforms, and if the rest of the country is equally well served, the people should be very well satisfied.
  *THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (The Earl of JEHSEY): I am sorry for my noble Friend's experience in his dealings with respect to this Post Office. However, I can only say that I do not think that is everybody's experience. I do not think it will be necessary for me to follow the noble Lord through the history of his dealings with the Post Office; but I may toll him that the present system has been in vogue for a long time. Still, some representations have been made to the Treasury on the subject, and they are carefully considering what they will do in the matter.

  INFECTIOUS DISEASE (PREVENTION) BILL.—(No. 117.)
  Amendments reported (according to order); further amendments made; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
  INLAND REVENUE REGULATION BILL.—(No. 166.)
  Read 3a and passed.

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
  Report from, That the Committee have added the Lord President (V. Cranbrook) to the Standing Committee for General Bills for the consideration of the Sheriffs (Assizes Expenses) Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.