Sitting of 21 July 1890

QUESTIONS.

  CROFTERS IN SOUTH UIST.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH (Invernessshire): I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the large island of South Uist is divided the one half and richer among 12 farmers, and the other and poorer among 1,250 families; that the Crofters have been in use to gather for sale the perishable commodity of sea ware called tangles, not only on the shores of their own lands, but also on those of the large farmers, without let or hindrance; but that, so soon as the Crofters, who had formerly considered themselves bound to sell to the proprietrix, understood they were entitled to free market, and began their operations this season in usual form, the proprietrix instigated some of the larger tenants, who do not themselves engage in the work, to interdict the Crofters from pursuing their occupation, and has in her own and their name instituted process to this effect in the highest and most expensive legal Court in Scotland; whether he is aware that, at a great open-air meeting held at Dalibrugh on the 16th of June, the people loudly complained of their treatment, and demanded legislative redress; and whether he will take steps to legislate for the relief of the people primarily interested, and against the closing of a valuable chemical trade?
  A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. MAXWELL,): I have been requested by my right hon. and learned Friend to answer this question. I am informed that it is not the fact that the Crofters have been in use to gather tangles on the shores of South Uist; nor is it the fact that they have sold the tangles to the proprietor. The industry, which is comparatively of modern growth, has always been conducted by the proprietor of the foreshore on the island, who pays to those Crofters employed to gather the tangles the whole proceeds under deduction of expense of supervision and incidental outgoings, and these
  330
  Crofters are under no obligation to work if they are dissatisfied with the remuneration the proprietor is able to give them. I am further informed that some months ago some Crofters asserted a right to enter upon and use a farm for gathering and drying tangles. An interdict has been brought against them and is now sub judice. I believe it is the case that an open-air' meeting was held on or about June 16, at which this, among other subjects, was discussed. My information being that no valuable chemical trade has been closed, and that no change has taken place in the manner of conducting this industry, I am unable to discover any legitimate grievance which calls for remedy by legislation.

  NUISANCE AT BATTERSEA.
  MR. OCTAVIUS V. MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to proceedings which have been instituted by the Vestry of the Parish of St. Mary, Battersea, against Messrs, Hudson and Covington, under the provisions of the Nuisances Removal Act, 1855, 18 and 19 Vic, cap. 121, before the Magistrate sitting at the Wandsworth Police Court, for the purpose of obtaining an order prohibiting the nuisance arising from the deposit of house refuse, &c, on premises in Victoria Road, Battersea; and whether, bearing in mind that the population of the Metropolis has about doubled, while in the same time the population of Battersea has grown from 11,000 to nearly 200,000 since the Act referred to was passed, he will state whether Her Majesty's Government intend to take steps with a view to the insertion of a clause in either the Infectious Disease (Prevention) or the Public Health (London) Consolidation Bills, now under the consideration of the Standing Committee on General Bills of the House of Lords, prohibiting the sorting, sifting, or accumulation of refuse in any part of the metropolitan area?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I am informed that the Vestry of St. Mary, Battersea, are instituting proceedings under the Nuisance Removal Acts against the occupier of certain lands for creating a nuisance by the deposit of

  331
  house refuse and other offensive matter. No decision in the case has, so far as I am aware, been as yet obtained. I may remind the hon. Member that the Infectious Disease Prevention Bill has been passed in the House of Commons, and was read the third time in the House of Lords on the 17th instant, and that there is no Public Health (London) Consolidation Bill at present before the House. Consequently, the Government cannot, apart from any other consideration, act upon his suggestion.

  INDIA COUNCIL BILLS.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether (1) it is the case that for some time past India Council Bills have been sold much beyond the average monthly rate; (2) whether this was done to take advantage of the higher exchange caused by anticipated silver legislation in America; (3) whether the present rate of exchange is much higher than that at which those surplus sales of Council Bills were made; (4) whether the Indian Treasury has thereby sustained a considerable loss; (5) and whether he will consider the advisability of delaying action as far as possible and await the full effect of the passage of the American Silver Bill, in view of the possibility of a rise to about 1s. l1d. per rupee, the old rate of exchange before silver demonetisation took place?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE JOB INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): The answer to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question is in the negative. India Council Bills have not been sold for some time past much beyond the average monthly rate. The answer to the second part of the question is also in the negative. The expectation of legislation in the United States has not influenced the amount of the sales. The answer to the third paragraph is that the present rate is higher than it has been for the last five years. The answer to the fourth paragraph is in the negative. There has been no surplus sale, and consequently no loss. As regards the last paragraph, the Secretary of State cannot delay such sale of bills as is necessary to meet the wants of the Service on the chance of a future rise in the value of silver.

  THE SALT TAX IN INDIA.
  MR. HOYLE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India what was the total amount paid into the Indian Exchequer from the Salt Tax during the last financial year; and what, during the fifteen weeks that have elapsed of the current financial year, is the amount received from the sale of bills and transfers over and above the estimate of the Finance Minister of India owing to the rate of exchange having risen higher than his estimate of the probable exchangeable value of the rupee?
  SIR J. GORST: The gross receipts from the Salt Tax for 1889–90 were 8,192,500 tens of rupees. The answer to the second question of the hon. Member is that the amount received during the current financial year from the sale of bills in excess of the estimate is £437,000.
  MR. HOYLE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the present rate of exchange will yield a surplus of £2,500,000?
  SIR J. GORST: I must ask for notice of that question.

  THE BURMA RUBY MINES COMPANY.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the statement made by the Chairman of the Burma Ruby Mines Company, Limited, at the ordinary general meeting of shareholders of that company, held on the 16th instant, to the effect that the Board had that day discussed the propriety of applying to the Government of India to relieve them of the payment of four lakhs of rupees per annum agreed on as the price of their concession, on the ground that the operations of the company had not resulted profitably; and whether he will undertake that no remission of this portion of the Indian Revenue shall take place without the House of Commons being previously informed of the fact?
  SIR J. GORST: The Secretary of State has received no official communication on the subject, but he has seen a newspaper report of the meeting. The Secretary of State cannot give the pledge suggested. But no such application has

  333
  been made either to him or, so far as he knows, to the Government of India, and he is not aware of any grounds upon which the rent of the Ruby Mines could be justly remitted.

  SILVER.
  MR. STEPHEN WILLIAMSON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the marked influence of American legislation on the gold price of silver in the London market, he is taking steps to secure a full supply for mintage purposes for our token silver currency?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): No, Sir; the Mint does not speculate in silver. But, subject to reasonable foresight and forecast, it must buy according to its requirements.

  WILLESDEN BOARD SCHOOL.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether complaints have reached him that the temporary School Board school at Willesden has no playground, no class room, is dark and ill-ventilated, and its sanitary arrangements are of the worst possible character; whether any complaints have been made by Her Majesty's Inspector as to the structural condition of this school; whether he is aware that the present School Board has acquired a site for a building to accommodate 1,000 children, and, notwithstanding their engagement to build for this number of children, have persistently neglected to do so; and what action the Education Department intends taking under the circumstances?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): I am aware that the temporary school is in a defective condition, but the Board is being pressed to improve the sanitary arrangements, as well as to proceed with the permanent building, which it is their duty to provide; and there is no intention to permit them to evade their responsibility in either regard.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Seeing the length of time which has elapsed, may I ask why the Department has not stirred in the matter?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I have just said that I have received information that the School Board are taking steps.
  MR. MUNDELLA: In the meantime there is no class room, and it is not a suitable building at all for a school.
  MR. CHANNING: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any assurance that the School Board are about to proceed with the building?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: Yes, Sir; I have received an assurance.

  BRITISH GUIANA.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to give the House any information with regard to the scheme of Constitutional reform for the Colony of British Guiana, as approved by the Secretary of State?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): The Secretary of State has formulated his views in a Despatch to the Governor, who has replied on certain points, and pending the completion of the correspondence it would not be to the public interest to give further information.

  THE FACTORIES ACT.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attentien has been called to the refusal of the Certifying Surgeon of the Retford district of Nottingham to grant a certificate under the Factories Act, 1878, to John Rutherford, aged 15 years, of fitness to work in an iron foundry, upon grounds which another factory Inspector, as well as two other independent medical men, have stated are insufficient to preclude the lad obtaining a certificate; and whether, as it is a serious matter, preventing the lad from following his occupation, he will cause an inquiry to be made into the circumstances of the case?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,): The Chief Inspector has made inquiry and reports that the father wished his son, aged 14, to be apprenticed to him as an ironfounder. The Certifying Surgeon, not considering him fit for employment in an ironfoundry, declined to give him

  335
  a certificate. The father then had the boy examined by two surgeons, who saw no objection to his being employed. These opinions were placed in the hands of the Certifying Surgeon, who, however, still retained his opinion. There is no appeal from the decision of the Certifying Surgeon. The boy is, therefore, debarred from working in the ironfoundry, but a certificate of fitness would be given to him for other occupations.

  MACHINE GUNS.
  MR. GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Government will issue to Volunteer Battalions possessing machine guns the requisite ammunition for practice with such guns?
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg, also, to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as Volunteer Battalions to which machine guns are attached are subject to a charge for ammunition on the occasion of field days with the Regular Forces, an allowance, or a free supply, can be issued to them?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): Machine guns having been obtained by the Volunteers themselves do not come within the rule which authorises the free issue of ammunition for use in rifle practice. But I will consider the matter before next year's Estimates.

  ARMENIA.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has yet obtained information as to whether the assertion that there are still Christian Armenian prisoners lying untried for the last two years in the gaols of Erzeroum and Erzingian be true; and, if so, will he use his influence to cause them to be tried, and, if innocent, set at liberty?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FER-GUSSON,): The Consul at Erzeroum reported in February last that five Armenians, who had been imprisoned for two years, were awaiting confirmation of a sentence of banishment. Her Majesty's Ambassador brought the matter unofficially to the
  336
  notice of the Grand Vizier. Further inquiries will be made.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the statement in the Daily News of 18th July, that it was owing to the advice of the British Government that the Turks are increasing the military in Armenia, and also to the report, in the same paper, that in Erzeroum people disappear, no one knows how or whither, and that during the late riots about one hundred persons disappeared, mostly women, who were at the public baths at the time, and are supposed to have been abducted by Mussulmans; and, if he has no information on the latter point, would he cause inquiries to be made into the truth of those reports?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: As was stated in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent on the 14th inst., certain recommendations made by the British, French, and Russian Consuls have been communicated to the Porte. A re-inforcement of the garrison of Erzeroum, and the patrolling of the country districts with cavalry, with a view to the protection of. the rural population, were amongst the measures recommended. No corroboration has been received of the alleged abduction of women.
  MR. SCHWANN: Is it intended to use Turkish irregular cavalry in Armenia?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: No, Sir"; I believe they are regular cavalry.

  MAIL SERVICE IN THE NORTH OF SCOTLAND.
  MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, seeing the Highland Railway Company have now expressed their readiness to continue the letter-sorting carriage at present stopping short at Tain on to Helmsdale without additional charge to the Post Office, and seeing this can be done without interference with or prejudice to the general re-arrangements of the mail service in the North of Scotland now under the consideration of his Department, he will without delay give effect to the improvement by ordering the sorting

  337
  clerks to continue their duties on to Helmsdale?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): It is true that the Highland Railway Company have liberally offered to extend as far as Helmsdale, without charge, the journey of the letter-sorting carriage which is now detached from the down day mail traim at Tain, thus increasing the daily journey by 113 train miles. The employment, however, of the requisite sorting force would throw extra expense on the Post Office, and the number of letters which would be benefited is very small. I will consider whether, under these circumstances, I shall be justified in accepting the company's offer.

  GAMBIA.
  MR. BARBOUR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to a communication in the Times of the 16th instant, in which negotiations are said to be in progress which may result in the transfer of the British Envoy of Gambia to France; if there is any foundation for this statement; and if, in the case of the transfer being ultimately decided on, due precautions will be taken for the preservation of British commercial interests?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: There is no foundation for the report that any negotiations are proceeding in reference to the Gambia.

  PAROCHIAL RECORDS.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Scottish Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the Rev. Thomas Bruce, of the Free Church, Rhynie, Aberdeenshire, was refused permission, on the 24th of May, to inspect and make extracts at the Register House, Edinburgh, from the records of the parish of Calluce, on the ground that he was not the minister of that parish; and whether this restriction has been framed by the authorities, or has been sanctioned by them?
  SIR H. MAXWELL: Permission to inspect and make extracts from the register is never refused to anyone who applies and pays the statutory fees. There is no record or recollection in the office of Mr. Bruce having been there on the date mentioned in the question; but,
  338
  from the search book, it appears that a Thomas Bruce, presumably the reverend gentleman referred to, made a search on the 27th May in the birth register of the parish of Calluce, and paid the fee of one shilling. The inspection of, and making extracts from, these registers is regulated by statute, and the regulations apply-equally to all persons and denominations, except in the case of a Kirk Session of a parish, or, anyone acting under its authority, desiring to have access to certain sessional records of such parish referred to in the statute.

  MORTALITY AMONG ARMY MEDICAL OFEICERS.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he accepts the statement made by Mr. Denham Robinson, Actuary to the War Office, before the Departmental Committee, presided over by Lord Camper-down, that the rate of mortality among the officers of the Army Medical Department is nearly double that among combatant officers, or in the proportion of seven combatant officers to 13 medical officers serving; and whether, in view of this high mortality, he is prepared tore-consider the question of allowing the medical officers only six months of sick leave as compared with the twelve months which are granted to combatant officers?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Taking the years of service as from 24 to 55, the loss by death out of 1,000 combatant officers would be 335·2, as compared with 497·7 out of 1,000 medical officers—nearly two to three. This medical mortality is based on the experience of the years 1852 to 1871. As I stated in reply to a previous question, the increase of sick leave is a question of expense, as substitutes would have to be provided.

  THE RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACT.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any communication has taken place between the Board of Trade and any railway company, since the termination of the public inquiry with reference to the classification and Schedule under "The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888"; and, if so,

  339
  will he lay such communication upon the Table?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): Yes, Sir: letters were written on Saturday to the London and North Western Railway Company and the Great Western Railway Company, enclosing, with the object of coming to an agreement, draft Schedules proposed to be made applicable to those companies respectively. Copies of these letters and Schedules were forwarded to the Railway Association. Copies of all these communications will be on sale at the Stationery Office.

  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has observed that within a few days the decisions of Committees of this House in the cases of the North British and Glasgow and South Western Railway Bill, the London Central Railway Bill, and the Ayr Harbour Bill have been reversed by Committees of the House of Lords; and whether he will consider the propriety of proposing the substitution of one tribunal, representing both Houses of Parliament, for the present system of double inquiries before Committees of each House?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes, Sir; I have noticed the decisions referred to by the hon. Member. The question raised is one of great importance, affecting the whole procedure on Private Business. Her Majesty's Government have proposed a change in this matter with regard to Scotland, and until the House has considered that proposal I do not think it is likely that any legislation on the subject with regard to England can be undertaken.

  WELSH WITNESSES.
  MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a case decided by the Justices in Petty Sessions at Colwyn Bay, on the 5th July, in which the defendant was fined 1s. and costs, and it was sought to include in such costs a fee of 5s. for interpreting the evidence of a Welsh witness, the
  340
  Clerk to the Magistrates stating that it was the practice to charge that fee when the services of an interpreter were required; whether the Magistrates expressed their disapproval of the practice, on the ground that it was equivalent to punishing a man because the witnesses were Welshmen, and disallowed the charge; and whether, if the practice be as stated, he could take any steps to put a stop to it in future?
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: Yes, Sir; the Secretary of State has seen a newspaper report, from which he gathers that the facts are as stated in the first and second paragraphs. The practice which prevails in the Metropolitan Police Courts is that the cost of an interpreter whose intervention is necessary to prove the case is paid out of the Police Court fund. The Secretary of State is now in communication with the Justices, with the view of removing any grievance from which Welsh witnesses may suffer in this respect.

  INSPECTORS OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether Inspectors of Weights and Measures who present themselves for examination, with a view of obtaining their certificates of qualification from the Board of Trade, and who happen to fail in any one of the prescribed subjects, are debarred from further examination for a period of six months; and, if so, whether he is aware that this rule is the cause of great inconvenience to Local Authorities and officers concerned; and whether he can amend the regulations with a view of reducing the limit of time between one examination and another?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes, Sir; the rule is as stated by the hon. Member, but I am not aware that its application has been a cause of inconvenience to Local Authorities, who are quite free to appoint another Inspector for the period which must elapse before a failed candidate can again present himself for examination. As the prescribed test is by no means a difficult one, and is chiefly of a practical nature, I am not prepared, as at present advised, to make any change in the regulations.
  MR. PICTON: If a man failed in some insignificant matter is it not a hardship to put him back for six months?
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Might it not be possible not to require re-examination on subjects in which the candidate has already passed?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I understand the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) to desire more frequent examinations.
  MR. PICTON: The point I wished to raise was that if a man fails in some insignificant particular, a period of six months should not elapse before he is re-examined. I understand that that is the case now.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes, Sir.

  THE CENSUS.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will call the attention of the Registrars to the observations of the Census Committee on the manner in which enumerators have hitherto been selected, and will give instructions that in future a large proportion of the enumerators chosen shall be women?
  MR. RITCHIE: The special attention of Superintendent Registrars and Registrars will, as suggested by the Census Committee, be directed to the importance of a very careful selection of enumerators and to the particular educational qualifications which it is essential that the persons employed should possess. The Committee observe that women are eligible for appointment as enumerators, and that they think that in many instances they might be so employed with advantage. There will be no objection to the Registrars being informed as to this.

  OUTRAGES AT VAN.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he now has any information to communicate with respect to the outrages committed in and near Van?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: No further information has been received since the date of the hon. Member's question on July 1. Inquiry will be made.

  THE LOCAL TAXATION PROPOSALS.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Her Majesty's Government have yet determined upon their recommendation as to the application of the extra taxation upon spirits, approved by this House in the belief that it would be utilised for the benefit of the contributors?
  MR. SEXTON: I have also to ask the right hon. Gentleman to what purposes the Government propose to appropriate the sum of £40,000 allotted to Ireland as the Exchequer contribution in respect of Local Taxation Licences, and the sum of £40,000, the unallotted portion of the Irish share of the new Beer and Spirit Duties?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Some misapprehension may possibly be conveyed by the wording of the question of my hon. and gallant Friend. He uses the word' "contributors," but a controversy may arise as to who the contributors really are, the distillers and brewers, or the-retailers, or the consumers. But there is the possibility of a further misapprehension. The extra taxation upon spirits and beer was not approved by the-House of Commons in the belief that the whole amount would be utilised for the benefit of the contributors, but with a proposal before it that one-third should be devoted to a certain purpose, an amount of £440,000, out of £1,304,000. If my hon. and gallant Friend's question is intended to suggest that, the purpose having failed, the tax ought to be repealed, the suggestion would only carry us to the repeal of one-third of the tax—namely, 2d. on spirits and 1d. on beer. Such a fractional repeal would, however, I have been given to understand, be unpalatable to those interested in the tax. It would disturb arrangements, contracts, price lists, &c, without, offering any appreciable relief. We, therefore, discard that solution of the application of the money set free. And further we shall abide by the principle-of this extra tax—namely, that it shall be devoted to local purposes spread over the whole country. This precludes the adoption of the suggestion contained in the question put by the hon. Member for Camborne to the First Lord of the

  343
  Treasury that a large portion should be devoted to purchasing the Crystal Palace for the nation. I Will now state what we propose as regards England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively. As regards England we propose to add the amount set free by the abandoned licensing clauses to the residue which, under the Bill as it stands, goes to the County Councils, accompanying this inclusion by an intimation that possibly new charges may, by-and-by, be put upon them, with reference to intermediate, technical, or agricultural education. It seems very desirable, if more is to be done in this respect, that the localities, and especially County Councils, should be interested in the work. In England there is at present little machinery available for carrying out such an object, and it would be impossible to create such a machinery at this period of the Session. But in Wales and in Monmouthshire the machinery does exist. County Councils may supply funds to the Joint Committee for intermediate education under the Act of last year out of the county rate, but to the extent of a halfpenny of such rates only. We shall propose that the County Councils in Wales should have authority to increase the sum out of the additional funds now placed at their disposal. As regards the £50,000 which falls to the share of Scotland, we also propose that the amount set free should go to the County Councils. The House will bear in mind, that while in England and Ireland much has been done for the ratepayer, so far in Scotland the ratepayer has scarcely had any advantage whatever out of the revision of local taxation, and it seems but just that his case should receive some consideration. As regards Ireland, we shall propose that the £40,000 which falls to her share should be utilised for the further promotion of intermediate education, and for this purpose should be placed at the disposal of the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland, a body which, I believe, commands the confidence of the Irish public generally, irrespective of political and religious differences.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will consider the revision of this extra taxation in his next year's Budget?
  MR. BUCHANAN: Do the same reservations apply to Scotland as to England?
  MR. GOSCHEN: No, Sir; there is no such reservation.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Will it simply become a part of the residue under the Bill?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Yes, Sir.
  MR. SEXTON: To what purposes do the Government propose to appropriate the sum of £40,000 allotted to Ireland, and the sum of £40,000, the un-allotted portion of the Irish share of the new Beer and Spirit Duties?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The £40,000 allotted to Ireland as a set-off against the gain derived by England and Scotland from the excess of licences received over grants dropped, we propose to devote to assisting the Irish Local Authorities who have taken action, or should hereafter take action, under the Irish Labourers' Dwellings Acts of 1882 and 1885.
  MR. A. ACLAND: Are the English County Councils to be allowed to use the money for intermediate and technical education, or do the Government only express an opinion that some day they may have to do so? With reference to Wales I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the County Councils there are to be directed to use this money to help the intermediate education which now exists, or whether they are only to be allowed to do so if they choose to pass a vote to that effect?
  MR. SINCLAIR: Will it be competent to the County Councils in Scotland to devote their share, or any part of it, for the purposes of education?
  MR. GOSCHEN: No, Sir. I believe it would not be possible for them to devote any part of that sum to purposes to which, by law, they cannot apply them. I am aware that the desire of a good many Scotch members is that this money should be devoted to setting education entirely free in Scotland; but that would have to be done by legislation. With regard to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Rotherham, I have explained that at this period of the Session it would be impossible to set up machinery for technical and intermediate education in England. The money will be placed at the disposal of the English County Councils, but an intimation will be given

  345
  to them which may guide them so that they may not spend it in a manner which would seem to stereotype in any way that payment to them. It will be pointed out to them that charges may, in the future, be put upon them in regard to intermediate education. It will be rather in the nature of a warning to them not to employ the money in such a manner as might imply the permanency of the payment.
  MR. A. ACLAND: What is to be done about Wales?
  MR. GOSCHEN: They will not receive any direction. They have the authority to use the money in that way. I would ask hon. Members whether it would not be better to wait until they see our proposals, embodied in the new clauses, as, in answering questions across the Table, I might be guilty of some slip, which might lead to misunderstanding by-and-by.

  CLARENCE BARRACKS, PORTSMOUTH.
  SIR WILLIAM CROSSMAN: I beg' to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to cut down the clump of old trees now standing on what was part of the old fortifications behind the old Clarence Barracks at Portsmouth; and, if so, if it is on account of their interfering with the new barracks which are about to be built; and whether some modification in the plan, could be made so that so great an ornament to the place might be preserved?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: This question has been referred to the Army Sanitary Committee as one likely to affect the sanitary condition of the proposed new barracks. Their Report is expected shortly, and upon it will depend the decision as to whether it will be possible so to modify the plans of the barracks as to preserve the trees.

  BRUNEI.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any correspondence has taken place between the Sultan of Brunei and the Colonial Authorities on the subject of recent transactions between him and Rajah Brooke; and if he will lay the correspondence upon the Table of the House?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Some correspondence has taken place between the Sultan of Brunei and the Colonial Authorities on the subject of transactions between him and Rajah Brooke. That correspondence is, however, incomplete, and, the subject being still under consideration, no Papers can be laid at present.
  MR SEXTON: Is there any truth in the statement that Labuan is to be handed over to this country?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: No, Sir; it is not the case.

  COMPOSITIONS FOR SHIPS.
  SIR WILLIAM PLOWDEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty who is the officer specially deputed to watch the result of compositions applied to ships of the Navy and those of the mercantile marine; is this officer an expert, and what previous technical experience and education has he had to qualify him for his duty; and when will Treasury sanction be obtained for his appointment?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The officer in question is Commander Pitt, R.N. Commander Pitt, in addition to his naval experience and training, was a member of an Admiralty Committee on compositions for coating ships' bottoms, and when that Committee, as a body, ceased their investigations, this officer was retained to watch the matter for a period of six months from the 1st of April, 1888. His services in this capacity were found so valuable that he has since been retained for two further periods of 12 months each, which were renewed as they expired. The term of his present appointment expires on September 30. The sanction of the Treasury has not been asked, the employment of this officer being special, and involving no addition to the permanent establishment.

  THE GRENADIER GUARDS.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the 2nd Battalion of the Grenadier Guards has been ordered to proceed abroad; and, if so, whither; what regiment will it replace; and- when was the last occasion of the

  347
  Foot Guards being sent abroad in time of peace?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: It is true that, after considering very carefully the evidence taken by the Court of Inquiry and all the circumstances of the case, His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief has decided to order the 2nd Battalion of the Grenadier Guards to proceed to Bermuda. I deeply regret that anything should have occurred to bring any discredit on the battalion, and I am sure that both officers and men will desire at the earliest date to regain the high reputation which attaches to the whole regiment. His Royal Highness has also directed that the command of the battalion shall be taken up by Colonel Eaton, and that no leave is to be granted to officers or men till further orders. The events which have occurred open up some questions which will be very carefully considered by His Royal Highness. But there is one point as to which no responsibility whatever attaches to the Guards, but which ought to be dealt with. I allude to the absence of any sufficient accommodation in the barracks for the officers, a fact which places them at a disadvantage as compared with Line regiments, and for this I hope to be able to provide under the Barracks Bill recently passed by this House, so that an officer per company shall always reside in barracks. The 2nd Battalion of the Grenadier Guards will replace at Bermuda the 1st Battalion of the Leicestershire Regiment, who are proceeding in the ordinary course to Halifax. The Guards are going instead of the 1st Battalion of the Liverpool Regiment from Aldershot, and, therefore, no extra expense is incurred.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: Is this course to be regarded as being by way of punishment?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I have stated the facts; the hon. Member can draw his own conclusion.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last paragraph of my question?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I should have said that Canada is the last place abroad to which the Guards were sent in time of peace.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman state
  348
  what is the present position of Colonel Maitland?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Colonel Maitland no longer commands the 2nd Battalion. The command has been taken up by Colonel Eaton.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Is he on the retired list?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: He is, or will be, on half-pay.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was not originally intended to send the battalion to the Cape?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: No, never.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state how long the battalion is to be away?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: No, I can say nothing on that point.
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: Do men who enlist in the Guards do so upon the understanding that they shall not be sent abroad except in the case of war?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Certainly not.

  THE HESSIAN FLY.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture-whether it is true that the Hessian Fly has appeared in the neighbourhood of Grantham; and what steps will be taken by the wide-spread diffusion of information, and by other means, to meet the danger which threatens the corn-growing counties?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): We have received no complaints as yet of the presence of the Hessian Fly in the course of the present summer in the neighbourhood of Grantham. But inquiries are now being made by the Board as to the truth of the statements which have appeared in certain newspapers respecting the appearance of the fly in that district and elsewhere. Repeated information has been circulated by the Board of Agriculture as to the methods to be employed in recognising and dealing with this insect plague. I have already desired that Circulars on the subject shall be re-issued, and every effort will be made to spread information on the subject as widely as possible, with the view of

  349
  counteracting as far as possible any danger from that source which may threaten the corn-growing counties.

  ILLEGAL FISHING IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it has been brought to his knowledge that not only the nets, but the whole gear was taken by the gunboat Watchful from several steam trawlers, which were fishing within the limits in St. Andrew's Bay, on the 6th instant; whether he will state under what Act of Parliament the commanders of gunboats are authorised to seize the gear, which is of considerable value, in addition to the nets; whether he is aware that, when the cases were tried at the Sheriff Court in Cupar, on the 14th July, no copy of the Act containing such authority could be produced; and whether, if it is found that the gear was improperly seized, he will cause it to be returned to the owners of the trawlers without delay.
  SIR H. MAXWELL: I am aware of the facts regarding the seizure of the nets and other fishing gear belonging to the trawler Skylark, on the recent occasion of her being caught fishing illegally in St. Andrew's Bay. The seizure of nets is authorised by the Herring Fishery Act of last Session. Whether or not the word "net" includes the other apparatus to which the net is attached, and which it is necessary to use for the purpose of trawling, is a question of law, depending upon somewhat minute facts about the apparatus. I am informed that when the case was tried the right to seize the gear was not questioned, but that the fact of its being seized was successfully pleaded in mitigation of sentence, the accused having tendered a plea of guilty. It is a question for a Court of Law to decide whether the seizure was illegal, but I have no doubt that if a Court held it was illegal, the owners of the nets would recover their property.

  IRELAND—KILRUSH QUARTER SESSIONS COURT.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask 'the Attorney General for Ireland whether it is a fact that there is an unsettled case at the instance of Patrick Lynan, Queen Street, Kilkee, in the Kilrush Quarter Sessions Court, for the past six years
  350
  and nine months, and which has on some point of law been adjourned from Sessions to Sessions; and whether he will inquire into the cause of the delay?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): I am informed that the case referred to, which is one for the administration of assets, was commenced in 1882. Three different solicitors undertook subsequently the case at various times but abandoned it. It was, however, again undertaken by another solicitor, and was partly heard at the last January Sessions and adjourned, not on a point of law, but for further evidence, to a subsequent Sessions. It now stands adjourned, both parties consenting, to the October Sessions, and will, it is presumed, be then finally disposed of.

  COUNTY SURVEYORS.
  MR. PINKERTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if county surveyors in Ireland have power, under any Act of Parliament, to fine contractors (without bringing them before any Court of Justice) for non-fulfilment of contract; if he is aware that, in the county of Londonderry, owing to the fines levied by the county surveyor, many contractors, or their sureties, have forfeited the full amounts of their bonds rather than submit to those exactions, and if the county surveyor has since altered the form of bond, and requires security to be given for double the amount of the contract; and if he can state the amount of fines levied, during the past three years, from contractors by the county surveyor of Londonderry without the defaulters being brought before any independent tribunal, or having any right of appeal?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The reply to the inquiry in the first paragraph is, I am advised, in the negative. I have no official information with regard to the matters referred to in the remaining portion of the question, as they are not under the control of the Executive Government. But from a Report received from the county surveyor of Londonderry it appears that in no instance has he inflicted a fine, the practice being, in cases where contractors do not entirely fulfil their

  351
  contract, for the Grand Jury to deduct from the total amount of the contract the amount of the deficiency as calculated by the county surveyor. No contractor has, to the knowledge of the county surveyor, ever voluntarily forfeited the full amount of his bond in the manner suggested in the question. But in some cases contractors have been decreed in those amounts either in the Court of Quarter Sessions or a Superior Court. He states that no alteration has been made in the form of bond; but that the form of tender heretofore in use has been altered, under the advice of counsel, to amend a defect in the old form of which contractors had taken advantage to evade carrying out the terms of their contract. He reports that the amounts deducted for deficiencies in respect of all contracts during the years mentioned were as follows: Year ending Spring Assizes, 1888, £2,368; year ending Spring Assizes, 1889, £3,505; year ending Spring Assizes, 1890, £3,046.

  "SHADOWING."
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in reference to the case against a Mr. Kent at last Fermoy Sessions, whether he can state if the Constabulary regulations on the question of "shadowing" over-ride the Common Law; and if a police constable or officer has any rights in connection with following or shadowing a civilian which a civilian has not with regard to a police constable or officer?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The reply to the inquiry in the first paragraph is in the negative. I cannot undertake to reply to the abstract question put in the second paragraph. The justification, or otherwise, for the proceedings referred to either by a police constable or a civilian must obviously depend upon the particular circumstances of the case.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Has the Attorney General received the depositions in this case?
  MR. MADDEN: Yes.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Do they bear out the allegations made by the right hon. Gentleman in this House?
  MR. MADDEN: Yes; but I shall be happy to show them to the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Was not the offence of which Mr. Kent was convicted the shadowing of a detective who was shadowing him?
  MR. MADDEN: My original statement was that he was a police officer in plain clothes. That was denied. But my statement appears from the depositions to have been accurate.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Is it an offence to follow a police officer in uniform, and not for a police officer to follow a civilian?
  MR. MADDEN: It is not an offence unless the following constitutes an obstruction to the officer in the discharge of his duty.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: How is a civilian to know a policeman in the discharge of his duty if he is in plain clothes?
  MR. MADDEN: If the hon. Member will read the depositions he will see what the facts of the case are. The man knew perfectly well that the officer was a police constable engaged in the discharge of his duty.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is-aware that Mr. Thomas Hayes, of Portumna, on leaving his house on Sunday, the 11th of May, to attend evening service, was shadowed by Constable Murphy, who, when Mr. Hayes met two-of his friends and stood to speak to them,, stepped in between the three men, and ordered Mr. Hayes, who was smoking at the time, to stop doing so; that, upon Mr. Hayes' refusal to obey the order, and telling the constable that if he did not like the smoke he could easily get rid of it by walking away, he was arrested, brought to the barrack, searched, and £87 found in his pocket; that, although Mr. Hayes told the police he had sent on 15 cattle to the fair of Woodford, which was to be held on the following day, and requested that he should be brought before a Magistrate that evening, or early in the morning, so as to allow him to attend to the sale of his cattle, his; request was refused, and he was kept in custody until 12 o'clock noon on Monday, and lost the sale of his cattle; whether Constable Murphy is the same man against whom both Mr. Fahy and Mr. Morrissey obtained decrees for £5 and £2 at last Quarter Sessions, held at Gort, for false arrest; can he explain how it

  353
  happened that, although Mr. Hayes was arrested on the 11th of May, the matter was allowed to drop until Fahy and Morrissey had obtained decrees against the constable; whether he has seen that it was proved at the trial that the constable had taken several pints of porter before he arrested Mr. Hayes, and that, after a full hearing, the case was dismissed; and, if so, what compensation is Mr. Hayes to get; and what action he proposes to take in reference to the constable?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not gather that the account in the first place can be taken as accurate, but the evidence given at Petty Sessions on the subject appears to have been conflicting. Mr. Hayes did not ask to be brought before a Magistrate, but, as a matter of fact, every effort was made to find a Magistrate at the earliest possible moment. Constable Murphy is the man referred to in the second paragraph. The police have, I believe, appealed. Through a mistake the summonses were not taken out by Hayes for the next Petty Sessions. But this had nothing to do with the claim against Murphy. There is no suggestion that the constable was drunk. The Magistrate, in dismissing the case, said the constable was injudicious, and that he gave Hayes the benefit of the doubt. The constable will be prosecuted at Portumna Petty Sessions, by order of the Solicitor General, under 6 William IV., c. 13.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in reference to the case of Mr. James O'Brien, of Killeagh, who was arrested for obstructing the constable who shadowed him at a fair, if he can now state whether it is a fact that Mr. O'Brien was compelled to wear the prison garments in Cork Gaol whilst confined as a bail or untried prisoner; and, if so, what explanation the Prisons Board have to offer on the matter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The General Prisons Board report that the allegation that the prisoner mentioned wore the prison dress is without foundation.

  ULSTER ROYAL SCHOOL ENDOWMENTS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of the delay in bringing into operation the scheme
  354
  for distributing the Ulster Royal School Endowments, published 30th April, 1888.signed 28th June, 1889, remitted 6th November, 1889, and signed, as amended, 6th December, 1889; and can he explain why the scheme was not put in operation last February, in view of the fact that the delay will give the existing endowments the benefit of another half year's rent?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: After the amended scheme, dated December 6, 1889, was submitted to the Lord Lieu tenant, further objections were made, which resulted in its being remitted to the Educational Endowments Commission in May last, and a further question has since arisen as to the provision for the superannuation of officers. This necessitates a further sitting of the Judicial Commissioners, notice of which sitting has been given for the 30th inst., the earliest day after the return of the Judicial Commissioners from circuit. It is not possible to put the scheme into operation until it has been finally approved by the Lord Lieutenant in Council, and this cannot be done until after all the objections have been disposed of.

  MR. MATTHEW WELD O'CONNOR.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his. statement has been called to the report of the judgment of Mr. Justice Monroe, re "King's Estate," in the Dublin papers of 4th July, dismissing Mr. Matthew Weld O'Connor from the receivership, and commenting strongly on his conduct in allowing four tenants to be sued for £27 2s., rent they had already paid, and surcharging him therewith, and with other sums, amounting to £181 13s., "verified" by Mr. O'Connor to have been spent on police huts and emergency men; whether Mr. O'Connor is a Magistrate for the three counties of Longford, Cavan, and Meath, and will be retained in the Commission of the Peace; whether he has observed that Judge Monroe also condemmed the conduct of an under agent, named Francis Cooke, of whom his Lordship remarked that his form of receipt was "a curiosity," but that he
  "Did not feel at liberty in holding on mere suspicion that Cooke had been guilty of perjury and fraud;"

  355
  whether Cooke is barony cess collector, process server, and summons server in Longford or Leitrim; will the Government take any steps to have him removed from these positions; will a Secret Inquiry, under Section 1 of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, be held to obtain evidence to prosecute Cooke in case that existing already is not considered sufficient; if not, is the judicial suspicion of "perjury and fraud" considered insufficient to ground such inquiry; and is Cooke the same person who was tried for shooting a girl in Mohill, and got off on the plea of self-defence?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg to refer the hon. and learned Member to the replies already given on the matters of fact referred to in this question. As regards the alleged statement made in court with respect to Cooke's action, steps are being taken to ascertain what actually occurred in Court, and the Attorney General for Ireland will then consider the matter.

  ALLEGED OUTRAGE BY ORANGEMEN.
  MR. BLANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that, on Sunday, 6th July, a number of Catholic excursionists from Portadown and Armagh, returning from the yearly trip to Lough Neagh, were stoned by an Orange mob at Clonmacate and Cloncore, six miles from Portadown, and that Stephen M'Guigan, senior, and Stephen M'Guigan, junior, were also attacked and threatened with death; and if the authorities will take steps to prevent such attacks on excursionists as are alleged to have taken place?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that a police party passed through the places at which the alleged attacks occurred, first in the morning and again in the evening, and that they were engaged all day on duty where the excursionists were, and no complaint was made of any person having been molested. Since the question appeared upon the Paper the local police have visited the two men mentioned. They allege that they were struck with stones on the road, but they have no marks of injury, and, up to the inquiry, they had made no complaint to the police. The excursionists had ample police protection on the occasion.

  PAWNBROKERS IN IRELAND.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether complaints have reached him as to the state of the law regarding pawnbrokers in Ireland, and that the hours during which pawnbroking establishments are kept open in some localities in Belfast is largely in excess of the time permitted by Act of Parliament; and whether he will consider the propriety of assimilating the law of Ireland with that of England, as regards the granting of licences to pawnbrokers, and the general regulation of the trade?
  MR. MADDEN: No complaints have reached me with reference to the particular point mentioned in the question, but I am bound to say that my examination on several occasions of the law of pawnbroking in Ireland has led me to the conclusion that it is in a very unsatisfactory state. It is governed by two old statutes, passed in the 26th and 28th years of George III., the latter of which contains the provisions as to hours referred to in the question. The provisions of this statute as to hours of business apply only to Dublin and a district within three miles of that city. I shall certainly consider the question referred to in the concluding paragraph of the question, with a view to introducing legislation on the subject in the coming Session.

  MOONLIGHTING IN DUHALLOW.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the charge of Judge Gibson, at the present Cork County Assizes, in which the learned Judge stated that offences of a moonlighting character are of frequent occurrence in the barony of Duhallow; if he can state at what date was Duhallow proclaimed under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; and under what sections of the Act the district is proclaimed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that it is the case that the Judge referred in his charge to the prevalence of moonlighting in the barony of Duhallow. The barony was proclaimed (with two others), with regard to Section 7 of the Statute quoted on the 17th of September, 1887. As part of the county it had also been

  357
  proclaimed on the 23rd of the previous July, with regard to Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4.

  IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. LEAMY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that at the last results examination, John Henry M'Dermot, who has been recommended by Canon Stenson for the position of monitor to the Bunamadden Boys' School, was promoted by the Inspector from the first stage of sixth class to the second stage of sixth class, the highest class in the National Schools, and of the difficulty of one person teaching efficiently a large number of boys, the Commissioners will re-consider their decision and comply with the request of Canon Stenson, and appoint the monitor he wishes?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Commissioners of National Education report that, for the reasons stated in reply to the previous question on this subject put by the hon. Member, they cannot sanction the proposed appointment.

  IRISH SEED TRADE.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether at the recent sitting of the Land Commission in Cork on the 3rd inst., Mr. Commissioner Wrench is correctly reported to have said, while hearing a fair rent appeal in the case of M'Grath, tenant, and Bullen, landlord, addressing the tenant—
  "You are a very wise man to get your grass seeds from England. If more tenants did that they would have better grass. It will pay you well to get your seeds from England;"
  and whether intimation will be conveyed to Mr. Wrench that language such as that quoted is likely to do great mischief to the Irish seed trade?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As Mr. Commissioner Wrench is at present on Circuit perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to defer this question until Thursday next.

  THE QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY.
  MR. PINKERTON: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a
  358
  judgment of the Court of Exchequer, whereby it would appear that certain professors of the late Queen's University have sustained a loss of nearly one-half their incomes by the dissolution of that university, and to the observations of Chief Baron Palles and Mr. Baron Dowse as to the imperfections in the Act, which prevent the legal award of compensation; and whether Government will give effect, by legislation or otherwise, to the suggestions of the learned Judges?
  MR. MADDEN: I have carefully examined the judgments delivered in the case referred to in the question by the Judges of the Exchequer Division. It is quite clear from these judgments that losses of the kind mentioned cannot form the basis for a claim for compensation under the University Education (Ireland) Act of 1879. I have ascertained that since the decision of this case, the position of the professors who are affected by it has been brought before the Treasury, and, after full consideration, the Treasury have decided not to re-open the question of compensation, but to leave it as it was determined by the Act of 1879.

  LAW BUSINESS OF THE CROWN.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: I beg to ask the Attorney General, with reference to contentious business in England, what are the rules which regulate the employment of the Law Officers of the Crown in actions to which the Crown is a party, either as plaintiff or defendant; do both of them claim to receive a brief in every such case; if not, how is it determined whether both of them, or only one, and which one of them, shall receive the brief; who fixes the fees to be marked on the briefs; are the fees, however simple the case, larger than would be paid in similar cases to other Queen's Counsel; if so, does the Junior Counsel who appears with the Law Officer receive a fee proportionate to the higher fee paid to his leader, or only such a fee as he would receive if his leader was an ordinary Queen's Counsel, and not the Attorney or Solicitor General; and if the Crown succeeds, and the other party to the action has to pay the costs, has he to pay all these higher fees?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): The question whether one or both of the Law Officers shall appear in actions to which the Crown is a party depends entirely upon the nature of the case. The standing rule for some time past has been that only one Law Officer is instructed except in cases where, owing to the number of witnesses or difficulty of questions raised, the services of both are considered necessary, and the personal directions of the Attorney General are taken before a second Law Officer is instructed. The brief fees are fixed by the solicitor instructing the Law Officers in the ordinary way, but they are on a scale lower than would be paid in similar cases to other Queen's Counsel. The Junior Counsel receives fees in the ordinary proportion to those fees. If the Crown succeeds the costs are taxed as between party and party in the ordinary way.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: Does the Attorney General decide whether he or the Solicitor General shall be briefed?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: Under ordinary circumstances they are taken in rotation; but if any question at all arises the directions of the Attorney General are taken.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Is it not the fact that in the case of "The Queen v. the East and West India Docks" the Master of the Queen's Bench cut down the fees from 77 guineas to 12 guineas, that there was an appeal, and that the Divisional Court refused to review the Master's taxation.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I have had no notice of this, but I remember that something of the kind occurred after I had made a rule not to go into Court under a certain fee. The Master was, in my opinion, right in not allowing those costs against the other party.

  "MITCHELL V. R EGINA."
  Mr. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether Messrs. Hare and Company, agents to the Solicitor of the Treasury, will only get half the allowance fees or taxed costs in the case of "Mitchell v. Regina," and the other half go to the Exchequer receipts of the Crown; whether this arrangement is in contravention of
  360
  paragraph 32 of the Solicitors' Act of 1843; whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the bill of costs in the case of "Mitchell v. Regina," both in the Court of Queen's Bench and in the Court of Appeal; and, what is t\he amount in each Court of the costs of the Crown?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that under an arrangement in force since 1806, Messrs. Hare and Company receive half the profit costs, plus disbursements, and pay over all sums received in respect of taxed costs. No portion of the costs in the case referred to will go to the Exchequer receipts of the Crown. Section 32 of the Solicitors Act, 1843, has no application to the case in question. I must decline to lay upon the Table the bill of costs in question. The costs of the Crown, as taxed in the Court below, amount to £160. The costs in the Court of Appeal have not been made out.

  ROYAL COMMISSIONS.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg 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 FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): The Government do not see that any useful purpose would be served by the preparation of the proposed Return, which they are therefore unable to assent to.

  NEXT SESSION'S WORK.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government, next Session, to give the Tithe Rent-Charge Bill and the Irish Land Purchase Bill precedence over other Government Bills until they have passed this-House?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It is our intention to put these Bills forward, so that they can be dealt with by the House at the earliest opportunity next Session.

  PERPETUAL PENSIONS.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury on what date he will, in fulfilment of the undertaking given on 16th May last, afford the House the opportunity of passing its opinion upon the Motion, of which notice has been placed on the Paper, disapproving the Treasury Minute of 15th July, relating to perpetual pensions?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have not had time to consider this matter, but if the hon. Gentleman will be so good as to postpone the question I will endeavour to fix a date.

  THE INDIAN COUNCILS BILL.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL (&c.): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in case Her Majesty's Government find themselves unable to deal in the present Session with the question raised in connection with the first part of the Indian Councils Bill, they will consider the expediency of trying, at least, to carry through the non-contentious later portions of the Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I still entertain the hope that the House will deal with the Bill as a whole in the course of the present Session.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman say to when he intends to postpone it from to-day, as I notice the Bill appears on the Orders of the Day?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: If the hon. Gentleman will be so good as to allow the Orders of the Day to be called on we shall then be able to answer the question.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Members will have, at the beginning of the Session to be opened in November next, the same right of balloting for Bills and Motions as at the beginning of ordinary Sessions of this House, and whether they will be able to set down Bills and Motions for the Wednesdays and Tuesdays and Fridays between the beginning of the Session and the adjournment over the Christmas Recess?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The existing Standing Orders or Rules of the House' will apply to the next as to the past Session.

  ERZEROUM.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, on the occasion of the recent disturbances at Erzeroum, the Mohammedan population of that place organised a demonstration-in front of the British Consulate; and whether the windows of the Consulate were smashed and the Union Jack was repeatedly fired at by the Moslem fanatics; and, if so, what reparation, if any, has been demanded of the Turkish authorities for this outrage?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: During the recent disturbances at Erzeroum the mob took possession of the street in which Her Majesty's Consulate is-situated; its windows were broken in common with those of other houses in the same street; Her Majesty's Consul-hoisted his flag, and communicated with the Vali, who sent a guard of gendarmes, and subsequently troops, who cleared the streets.

  THE MALTESE MARRIAGE LAWS.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Canon Law is in its entirety the Civil Law of Malta; and, if not, what parts of the Canon Law are the Civil Law of the island, and when and by virtue of what stipulations, proclamations, or enactments, have they become so; and whether he is aware that Mr. John Austin and Sir George Cornewall Lewis, who were sent out as Commissioners to the island in 1838, reported that "most of the law of Malta (like most of the law of many other-European Nations) is derived directly from the Roman Law?"
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Crown Advocate at Malta has reported that—
  "The matters which, in Malta, are governed by the canon law are marriages and ecclesiastical benefices (advowsons). The canon law on these matters was introduced in these islands by usage long before the British occupation, and has remained in force to the present day."
  This is the whole of his Report. The quotation from page 39 of Mr. Austin's.

  363
  and Sir George Cornewall Lewis's Reports (which were laid before Parliament in 1839) is correctly cited by the hon. Member, but it is not inconsistent with the above statement by the Malta Crown Advocate.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is intended to continue the practice of granting to the clergy of different denominations in Malta licences to celebrate mixed marriages in that island, as was the custom down to the time of the commencement of the negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Pope.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It is understood that the Governor's licence for a marriage has not been granted when it was known to the Governor that one of the parties was a Roman Catholic and had not obtained a dispensation from his Church. The question of the law of marriage in Malta is engaging the anxious attention of Her Majesty's Government, and they are not at present in a position to give a definite answer as to the practice which will be adopted in future in respect of the issue of licences by the Governor.

  MEMBERS AND THE POST OFFICE.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg 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?
  MR. RAIKES: I am not aware that there has been more than one application recently on the part of any Member of this House to visit the General Post Office; and I think every Member who has applied at a convenient time will not be slow to admit that I have always been ready to do all in my power to facilitate his visit. The present moment is, however, not the best to select for such an inspection.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Will such a convenient moment offer before the Post -Office Estimates come on for discussion?
  MR. RAIKES: No, Sir; I think not.

  THE ANTI-SLAVERY CONFERENCE.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the reason given by the representatives of the Netherlands at the Anti-Slavery Conference at Brussels for declining to sign the Convention, and whether this refusal was on account of objection to the articles relating to restrictions on the liquor traffic; whether he is aware that the Netherlands is largely interested in the importation of spirits into the areas affected by the Convention, and whether the objection entertained by the Netherlands to the imposition of import duties in the Congo State could be removed by increasing the duty on spirits and allowing free trade in all other merchandise; whether the refusal of the Netherlands to sign the Convention will render the whole General Act nugatory, or only the particular part to which objection is taken, and, in the absence of the adhesion of the Netherlands, will the General Act in whole or in part be binding on the Powers who have signed; and whether the proposed duty on the importation of spirits to the Congo and elsewhere is only l½d. per quart, whereas in England the duty is as high as 2s. 7½d. per quart?
  SIR J. PERGUSSON: The reason given by the Netherlands Representative for declining to sign the Convention was that the imposition of Import Duties was contrary to the provisions of the Berlin Act, which they did not consider the Brussels Conference competent to alter. Her Majesty's Government desired that a much higher rate of duty on spirits should be imposed, but were unable to procure its adoption. The proposed duty will be about l½d. a quart. I believe that negotiations are going on which, it may be hoped, will procure the removal of the objection; but the General Act will remain in suspense until all the Powers, parties to the Act of Berlin, have signed it.

  SHIPWRECKED EMIGRANTS.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, after the Dacca was wrecked in the Red Sea last May, two girls, Ann and Maria Walsh, of Bally-

  365
  dinan, County Clare, emigrants to Australia, were brought back to Suez and detained there a month, waiting for the ship Zaroba; that, though their trunks and outfit were lost, the Company only tendered them £2 each, an offer afterwards increased to £8 each, which they were constrained to accept; and whether the law affords any protection to emigrants in such cases; and, if not, if he would take the subject into his consideration, with a view of providing some authority to which friendless emigrants might have recourse for assistance and advice?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have not received any official Report of the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers, but through the courtesy of a Representative of the Queensland Government, I am informed that the passengers in question were sent out with other emigrants in the Dacca by the Queensland Government. After the wreck of the Dacca, they were transferred to another vessel, on which they were kept and treated, exactly as they would have been on the Dacca, until it was possible to send them on to their destination. I am also informed that they were not in need of advice or assistance, and were not landed at Suez. I need hardly remind the hon. Member that British subjects who may be in need of advice abroad can always have recourse to Her Majesty's Representatives. As regards compensation for loss of outfit, &c, that is obviously a matter for arrangement between the parties concerned, and I do not think the circumstances of this case show the necessity for any alteration of the law with regard to emigrants.

  OFFICIAL RECEIVERS IN BANKRUPTCY.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the highest, lowest, and average amount of remuneration received by the unsalaried Official Receivers in Bankruptcy, whether by fees, or commission, or otherwise; and the total amount of such remuneration, and the number of such receivers?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The highest and lowest amounts of remuneration paid to the unsalaried Official Receivers for the year 1889 were respectively
  366
  £1,517 and £208. The total amount of remuneration paid to 56 unsalaried Receivers during the financial year 1889-90 was £44,308, and the average amount paid to each Receiver was £791. These are the gross amounts paid, out of which the Official Receivers have to provide office accommodation and clerical staffs. The present number of unsalaried Official Receivers is 46.

  ARRESTED FOR DRUNKENNESS.
  MR. H. R. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a woman named Margaret Brown, who is known to be drunk frequently and has recently been in prison for drunkenness, was taken up in York Street, Westminster, and obliged to be removed to the King Street Police Station on a stretcher quite drunk at 10 o'clock in the morning on Wednesday, 25th June; whether any and what steps were taken to ascertain where she was supplied with drink; and whether the person who supplied her with the drink has been prosecuted; and, if not, will he explain why this has not been done?
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that a woman giving the name of Margaret Brown was arrested as stated. She had been charged with a like offence on the 18th June, and sentenced to seven days' imprisonment. As she was not seen leaving a public house, it was quite impossible to ascertain where she was supplied with drink. In nearly all such cases the drink is procured at several houses, and the difficulty of obtaining proof in a place like London is very great. If proof were forthcoming, the police would not hesitate to institute proceedings.

  INTIMIDATION OF AN EMERGENCY MAN.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, on the 6th of June, a man named Connors was sentenced by Colonel Evanson, R.M., to three months' imprisonment on a charge of intimidating an emergency man named Holmes; whether the only witness against Connors was Holmes, who swore to some offensive

  367
  language as having been used by Connors; and whether, under the circumstances that Connors is well known to be a harmless simpleton, he will be compelled to fulfil the sentence of three months?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that the facts are not accurately represented in the question. Connors was proved to have used most violent language towards Mr. Robert Holmes, a land steward. In addition to the evidence of Mr. Holmes, a police sergeant gave evidence as to the defendant's violence and bad behaviour. The defendant was not sentenced to imprisonment, but was ordered to enter into recognisances to be of good behaviour, or in default three months' imprisonment. He refused to give bail, electing to go to prison in default. The defendant is not known as a harmless simpleton, but is represented to be a man capable of doing much mischief. He can obtain his immediate release by entering into the required recognisances.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Has the right hon. Gentleman made full inquiries as to the state of this man's mind? Is he not a lunatic?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have given the hon. Gentleman all the information I possess.
  DR. TANNER: Has the right hon. Gentleman received his information from the Doctor of Clonmel Gaol, who was himself a lunatic?

  BOYCOTTING IN TIPPERARY.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Patrick Burke, of Tipperary, has for 13 years pursued his calling as repairer of boots and shoes in a street in Tipperary, and that policemen in Tipperary have passed his stall repeatedly, saying to Burke, "hurry on with our jobs;" and have they offered him money in the presence of other persons, for the performance of work supposed to be done for the police by Burke: and, if true, what is the object of the police in thus interfering with this man?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that they are not aware how long Burke has worked at his calling of boot repairer in the streets of Tipperary, but that it is the
  368
  case he has done so for some time. They cannot find that there is any truth in the particular allegation with regard to the police; but they state that it is the case that his movements have been watched, owing to complaints made by boycotted shopkeepers that he, while ostensibly carrying out his trade in the street, took up a position near their shops, and promoted their boycotting by warning persons not to enter.

  THE CASE OF PATRICK STAUNTON.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. Patrick Staunton, having appealed from the decision of a Court held at Castlemartyr, County Cork, on the 24th February last, had his sentence increased by one month by Mr. J. Hamilton, the Cork Recorder; and whether the extra month imposed by Mr. Hamilton was given subsequent to the confirmation of the original sentence, for alleged contempt of Court; and, if so, whether Mr. Staunton will be treated during the additional period of imprisonment as a bail prisoner?
  MR. A. J.BALFOUR: I am informed that it is the case that after the Recorder confirmed the sentence he increased the original term of three months' hard labour by an additional month, owing to the violent conduct of the man in Court. He will not, therefore, be in the position of a bail prisoner during that additional month's imprisonment.
  DR. TANNER: Is it usual for a County Court Judge to give hard labour for contempt of Court?
  MR. MADDEN: I have not the facts of this before me, and, therefore, I cannot answer any question relating to it.
  MR. SEXTON: Is it within the jurisdiction of the Judge to increase the sentence, not in respect of the original offence, but for something that happened in Court.
  MR. MADDEN: I must ask for notice. I have not the facts before me.
  MR. SEXTON: This is a question of general principle, and not dependent on the facts of a particular case.
  MR. MADDEN: I can only repeat that I am not acquainted with the facts of the case1; but it is absolutely in the power of the Judge, on the hearing of an appeal, to increase the original sentence. I presume that the demeanour of

  369
  the accused was an element in the consideration of the case.
  MR. SEXTON: I want to know whether the decrease or increase of the original sentence must not have relation to the original offence?
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Is not the County Court Judge a landlord at variance with his tenants, and is he, therefore, competent to try cases in which disputes between landlord and tenant are concerned?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I know nothing about that.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Is it in the power of any County Court Judge to sentence a man to hard labour for contempt?
  MR. MADDEN: I must respectfully repeat, it would be much more satisfactory if the facts of the case were before me before answering this question. No general expression of opinion in such a matter can be of much value unless applied to the facts of a particular case.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that it is perfectly clear that a Court of Appeal has power to increase sentences on appeal. May I ask whether the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been called to the statement of the Master of the Rolls in a Debate in the other House, to the effect that—
  "Equally contrary to English law was it that a sentence passed by a Judge should be increased, but a sentence that was too severe might be diminished;"
  and whether that statement of English law by Lord Esher is also the law in Ireland?
  MR. MADDEN: I have not any knowledge of the particular facts of the case to which that general statement referred to by the right hon. Gentleman applies. I think it is inconvenient to ask for a commentary on such a statement without giving notice. If the right hon. Gentleman will kindly put a question on the Paper, I will examine into the subject, and see whether there is any inconsistency between that statement of the law and the position in Ireland with reference to the power of County Court Judges to increase sentences on appeal.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: With regard to increasing sentences on appeal, I wish to ask whether the Chief
  370
  Secretary has seen a letter addressed by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham to a correspondent, stating that the increase of sentences was un-English, more honoured in the breach than in the observance, and practically promising that it would not occur again. I know the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham has no power to pledge the Government to any action; but will the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in these circumstances, examine into the facts of this case, and be good enough to advise the Lord Lieutenant to remit the sentence?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member has referred to a letter of mine. I do not recognise its contents in the account which he has given of it
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman repudiate even so gracious a letter.
  MR. AMBROSE: As to the observation of the Master of the Rolls, I wish to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether it is not within his knowledge that the Lord Chancellor, in the course of the same Debate, mentioned the practice as within his experience, and referred to a very old case in which sentence was increased on appeal.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I rise to order, Sir. Is it in order to refer to a Debate in the other House?
  MR. SPEAKER: Reference has already been made to the other House; but I think the whole discussion is becoming one of general law, and is out of place in answer to a question.

  THE LOCAL TAXATION BILL.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN&c): I beg to give notice that I shall at the proper time move as an Amendment to the proposed dealing with the £50,000 unappropriated out of the new Whisky Tax in Scotland, that the money be devoted directly to the completion of a scheme of free primary education.

  MORTALITY AMONG CORNISH MINERS.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I wish to ask the Home Secretary a question of which I have given him private notice. It is whether his attention has been called to

  371
  the report of a speech made a few days ago by Mr. Pinching, Government Inspector of Mines in Cornwall, with reference to the excessive mortality among Cornish miners? He said—
  "Their friend Mr. Conybeare asked two questions in the House of Commons on the previous night with regard to the unsanitary condition of Cornish mines. He thought Mr. Conybeare was mistaken in his question, end mistaken in his premisses. He did not mean the unsanitary condition of the mines in the ordinary acceptation of the term, but the unsanitary condition of the air in the mines. He did not think it would be a breach of confidence to say that he had the pleasure of replying to the questions. Since the Report of Dr. Ogle was written, the conditions had much altered. The excessive mortality of Cornish miners was attributed to excessive ladder climbing and bad air. Since the Report was written, he was able to say the causes had been almost entirely eliminated by the improvements in machinery adopted for raising and lowering men, and boring machinery which produced a current of air in foul ends; and except the men themselves were guilty of an omission, there was no danger whatever to be expected from phthisis, which was the miners' complaint. He hoped the question would be answered that afternoon, and the answer would probably relieve their friend's mind."
  I wish to know whether the inquiry promised last Monday has taken place, and whether the Inspector has presented any Report thereon; whether it is part of the duty of a Government Inspector who has been instructed to hold such an inquiry to prejudice beforehand the case by making such ex parte statements in after-dinner speeches, and whether, having regard to the fact that by his speech Mr. Pinching has destroyed all confidence in the value of any Report he might hereafter present on this subject, he will cause the promised inquiry to be held by some independent and impartial authority?
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: The Inspector replied provisionally by telegram to the inquiries which the Secretary of State addressed to him when the hon. Member first placed his question on the Paper. Such reply did not arrive in time to enable its substance to be given in the House. It was to the same effect as the words used in the speech referred to. The full written Report from the Inspector has not been yet received, but is daily expected. The Inspector when he made the speech was no doubt under the belief that the substance of his telegram had by that time been communicated to Parliament, and he was
  372
  probably anxious to allay as soon as possible any further anxiety that might be felt on the subject. The Secretary of State is not aware of any circumstances calling for any inquiry other than what it is the duty of the Inspector to conduct, and which he can be perfectly trusted to conduct with impartiality.
  MR. CONYBEARE: The question was asked this day week in the House, and yet full particulars are not yet forthcoming. Will the right hon. Gentleman, with a view to satisfying the population of Cornwall in this matter, order a public and impartial inquiry at which the men can be represented? My constituents demand it, and nothing less than that will satisfy them.
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: If the question is of such gravity, it seems to me that the hon. Member should have given notice.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Then I beg to give notice that I shall give notice.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. SEXTON: When will the Amendments to the Local Taxation Bill be put down, and what is the business for tomorrow?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government hope that the Amendments to the Local Taxation Bill will be in the hands of Members on Wednesday; they will be put on the Paper to-morrow. To-morrow further progress will be made with the Census Bill, the London County Council Bill, and afterwards the Army Votes. On Wednesday, the Post Office Votes will be taken first.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary whether he will place on the Paper his proposal with respect to the suspensory clauses relating to Ireland?
  SIR W. LAWSON: When is it really intended to take the Local Taxation Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It is really impossible to do more than one thing at a time; but if the hon. Baronet gives me an assurance as to the progress of business for the next four or five days, I shall be able to state when the Local Taxation Bill will come on. I hope we shall be able to take it this week.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:. I think that the number of Amendments renders it doubtful whether the Government will

  373
  be able to pass that part of the Bill which relates to new licences.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will any notice be given to Irish Members as to the proposal with regard to Ireland.
  SIR W. LAWSON: Is it to be understood that it is doubtful whether the Government will go on with the suspensory clauses?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I stated to the House that the clauses would not be proceeded with if they were opposed, and there are two or three pages of Amendments on the Paper.
  SIR W. LAWSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by opposition, amendment?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Certainly; if amending takes the form of obstructing.
  MR. F. STEVENSON: When will the Bill for the cession of Heligoland be taken?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I will state positively to-morrow whether the Heligoland Bill will be taken on Thursday, as I hope may be the case.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: Can the right hon. Gentleman name a day for the Scotch Estimates?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I cannot say when the Scotch Estimates will be taken.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes. Nothing will be done with regard to Ireland, except by a preparatory measure, as in the case of England and Scotland. I believe there are a number of Amendments now down on the Paper which renders it very doubtful whether we shall be able to pass that part of the Bill preventing the new licences.
  MR. DILLON: I want to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant whether he could not see his way to postponing Report of Supply until tomorrow evening, as there are some Members exceedingly anxious for a discussion on the Land Commission? Will the right hon. Gentleman adjourn Supply to-morrow night at about half-past 10, and take this discussion, which will occupy an hour and a half?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: If the hon. Member and his friends express a desire that we should adjourn Report until to-morrow night, we shall do so; but we could not undertake to interrupt pro-
  374
  ceedings on the Army Estimates at half-past 10 o'clock.
  MR. DILLON: It is of no use adjourning it until to-morrow unless you give a reasonable opportunity for discussion. Really, the Chief Secretary will not deny that we gave great facilities for getting through the Irish Votes last week. I could have talked this Vote out last Wednesday quite easily.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly accurate in what he says with regard to his behaviour on Wednesday. He could easily have talked this out. If business can be got through by half-past 10, every opportunity will be afforded for the discussion which the hon. Gentleman desires.

  MR. BAIRD'S LOBSTER FACTORY.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Can the Government confirm the statement in this morning's papers from Newfoundland that the litigation as to Mr. Baird's lobster factory has terminated by the commanding officer paying the damages claimed by Mr. Baird; and is the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs prepared to state what was the legal authority under which the commanding officer acted?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I must ask for notice of that question.

  JUSTICE HARRISON AND LYNCH LAW IN IRELAND.
  MR. DILLON: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has' been directed to a statement made by Justice Harrison at Galway on Friday last. Speaking of the condition of the county he used the following words:—
  "In the eastern district I am sorry to tell you the evidence is the other way. The cases here are very serious, arising out of causes with which you are all familiar. The state of things here is such that why the people—I do not speak now of any section of the people or the officers of the law, but the whole people—who are the real sufferers by having to live under such conditions do not rise up and use lynch law is a mystery to me. I am astonished they do not do so. If they did, I think it would be a happy day for the administration of the law. It now seems completely paralysed throughout that district of your county."
  I will further ask, Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that lynch law is to take the lives of individuals without any sanction from the law, and is he aware that that language must be interpreted

  375
  by the people of the country as an invitation from the Judge to murder certain individuals in that county; and what course does the Government intend to adopt?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have seen the report of the Judgment referred to. Whether that report is accurate or not I cannot say. I should guess, however, that it is not accurate; but, in any case, I am certain that no such invitation as that suggested was ever made by the learned Judge, or that his language can be interpreted by the people of the district in the sense supposed by the hon. Member.
  MR. DILLON: I am able to state on the authority of one of the Grand Jurors that the report is accurate. I wish to know whether the Executive will call on the Judge for an explanation. I propose to place a Motion on the Paper condemning this language; and I ask the leader of the House whether he can see his way, supposing after inquiry the language is found to be accurate, to consent to give me an opportunity of bringing that Motion forward?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: From what is the hon. Member quoting?
  MR. DILLON: From the report in the Freeman's Journal of Saturday last. I have also here with me the Dublin Daily Express, which quotes the language of the Judge with approval, and intimates that, in its opinion, it would be a very proper course to follow the advice of the Judge and use lynch law. Before bringing the matter before the House I was at pains to ascertain from a member of the Grand Jury of Galway, who listened to the speech, that the report was perfectly accurate.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Seeing that the hon. Member has been the victim of misreporting this week, did he ascertain from Mr. Justice Harrison if the Freeman Report was accurate?
  MR. DILLON: I did not ask; I put that question to the leader of the House whether, on the supposition that the Government ascertain that the language has been correctly reported, he will give me facilities for bringing this Motion before the House?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think in a matter which affects a learned Judge it would be wrong for me to assume that
  376
  language of this kind had been held, and I therefore cannot consent to the hon. Member's request.
  MR. DILLON: I will put the question down for Friday, in order to give the Irish Executive a full opportunity to satisfy themselves. I repeat that this is a question on which the Irish Government ought to satisfy themselves whether the language was used. I ask the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government to give me an opportunity of bringing my Motion to an issue on this point.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Irish Government have no right to address questions to the Judges. No doubt Mr. Justice Harrison will see what has passed in the House, and if he chooses to give me an account of his charge I shall be grateful for it. We have no title whatever to interfere, directly or indirectly, with the action of the Irish Judges.
  MR. DILLON: I shall certainly give notice to the First Lord of the Treasury on Thursday next that I shall ask him for an opportunity to bring forward this Motion.

  SCOTCH SALMON FISHERIES.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Wigtonshire, in the absence of the Lord Advocate, why the terms of Reference to the Commission on the Scotch Salmon Fisheries have been omitted from their Report?
  SIR H. MAXWELL: The terms of reference appear to have been omitted by an error of the printers—an error overlooked by me in correcting the proofs. They were as follow:—
  "The Committee to inquire into the exercise of the Crown rights in the salmon fisheries of Scotland, on the coasts, and the seas adjacent thereto, and their effect on the preservation and supply of fish."
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Can we have that in print? And I should like to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Lord Advocate is absent on public duty or through indisposition——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  SIR H. MAXWELL: My right hon. and learned Friend is sitting on a Committee, in which hon. Members for Scot-land are interested.

  MR. P. MAGAN, J.P.
  MR. HAYDEN: I wish to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether any steps have yet been taken by the Irish Land Commission to recover the money alleged to have been fraudulently obtained by Mr. Percy Magan, J. P., under the Arrears Act; what explanation of his conduct he has given to the Land Commission; and whether Mr. Magan still continues to hold the Commission of the Peace for the Counties of Roscommon, Westmeath, and Wexford?
  MR. MADDEN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will repeat his question again. I have been in communication with the Land Commissioners, but have not yet received an answer.
  MR. HAYDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us a Report when the Vote comes on?
  MR. MADDEN: I will see when it comes on.

  ON-LICENCES.
  Order [20th June] for Return relative thereto read, and discharged; and, instead thereof,—

  ON-LICENCES.
  Address for—
  "Return of (1) the number of On-Licences in each licensing district where the tenant and owner on the register are different persons; and (2) the number of persons in each district, and the names of such persons, who are on the register as owners of two, three, four, and any greater number of premises in respect of which On-Licences have been granted, with the number of such licences attached to each name."—(Mr. Summers.)

  CENSUS (EXPENSES).
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of all expenses that may be incurred for the purposes of the Census under any Acts of the present Session for taking the Census of England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland (Queen's Recommendation signified). Tomorrow.
  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  John Wilson, esquire, for County of Durham (Mid-Division).

  PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS.
  Copy ordered—
  "Of Memorandum stating the nature of the proposals contained in the Provisional Orders
  378
  included in the Pilotage Orders Confirmation Bills (No. 1) and (No. 2)."—(Sir Michael Hicks Beach.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 313.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—Western Australia Constitution Bill, without any Amendment; Intestates' Estates Bill, with an Amendment; Boiler Explosions Act (1882) Amendment Bill, with Amendments.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  ALDERSHOT ROADS (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.—(No. 379.)
  Bill considered in Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 7 be added to the Bill."
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I desire to point out to the House that under the clause as it stood it was open to the War Office to shut up the roads over the whole of the Aldershot lands. But the Select Committee inserted very important Amendments, by which two tracks across the centre of these lands shall not be closed to the public, except during the time of of rifle practice. The effect of that will be that the War Office will not be able to fence these two tracks, and the enjoyment of roads across the Aldershot lands will be secured to the public, except during the time of rifle practice. That being so, opposition to the Bill has been disarmed.
  MR. BUCHANAN: There are one or two matters I should like to bring before the Committee in reference to this clause, which I think are worthy of attention. I would first of all point out that, notwithstanding the reservations that have been put into the Bill, the public rights have been seriously interfered with at Aldershot. Although it is impossible at this period of the Session to make any effective opposition to the Bill, I do not think this clause ought to pass without some notice being taken of the fact that we protest against the encroachments made by the Secretary for War on the public rights. The clause also provides for compensation for the abandonment of certain rights

  379
  way, but that compensation is not to the public whose pathways have been abolished, but to the owners and occupiers of the adjoining lands. I venture to say that, in the opinion of the general public and of the majority of this House, the individuals who will really suffer from the removal of the existing rights of way are not the owners and lessees of the adjoining lands who have hitherto had the right of user, which is now being so seriously restricted. I should like to ask the Secretary for War in what form it is proposed that grants of money for compensation purposes are to come before this House. Are they to be inserted in the Army Estimates or in what other form? In future, when it is proposed to grant public money for such a purpose, I think the Government will find that their proposal, if not hotly opposed, will be seriously criticised by hon. Members, and we certainly ought to be informed as to how the money is to be voted, and all the conditions of the proposed compensation. Another point is this: In Sub-section 2, Clause 7, the tribunal to which those who deem they are suffering under any grievance will have to appeal will be the Chairman of the County Council of Surrey and the Secretary for War. It is satisfactory to those who, like myself, have striven to put the control of the public rights of way into the hands of the County Councils of England and Scotland to hear that in this Government Bill the County Council is to be made a joint arbiter with regard to questions of right of way. In conclusion, I have to say that I accept, under protest and with very great reserve, the clause that has been here inserted.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODRICK,): I am glad the hon. Member approves the tribunal that we have formed. Any compensation under the Bill will be provided in the Army Estimates, and I trust the Committee will find that the operation of the clause will prove by no means so dangerous to the neighbourhood as the hon. Member supposes.
  Clause agreed to.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The object of the clause I have to move is to prevent the War Office from selling or
  380
  alienating any of the land of Alder-shot without the sanction of Parliament. A few years ago these lands at Aldershot extended over 11 square miles of common, and was subject to the ordinary common rights, being practically inalienable; that is to say, it could not be sold by the lord of the manor and could not be enclosed without the sanction of Parliament. When the War Office were authorised to purchase the rights of the lord of the manor, they asked power to buy up all the rights over the land. There were a number of old footpaths, and as long as they existed it was difficult for the War Office to deal with the ground. Since the War Office became owners of the fee of the land, and have been enabled to extinguish the commoners' rights, they have sold a number of outlying pieces of the common. There are a great many bits of outlying land which form features of great beauty to the surrounding country, and are therefore much appreciated by the public; but a considerable number of these have been sold by the War Office during the past two years. The neighbouring landowners are exceedingly anxious to get these outlying pieces, some wanting them to add to their game pre serves, others in order to get nearer to the high roads, while others may desire them with a view to speculative building. I do not think the War Office should be allowed to part with these lands without regard to the public interest; and therefore I propose this clause, under which they shall not be allowed in future to sell these outlying pieces except with the sanction of Parliament. This would practically give the public the same security which they have had in the past. The practical effect of my Amendment would be that the War Office might exchange portions of the Aldershot land for adjoining pieces where desirable for military purposes; but where they wish to sell the land outright, they will have to come to Parliament for leave to do so, just as if they had been in the position of the lord of the manor. I do not think this is asking too much of the Government, who are undoubtedly obtaining a valuable addition to their property in obtaining the right to use the land for rifle practice, which hitherto they have been prevented from doing by the existing rights of way.

  381
  New Clause (Secretary of State may exchange but not sell land without sanction of Parliament,)—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed' "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. BRODRICK: I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has an admirable object in view in promoting this clause, but I think he will see it is one to which the Government cannot assent. I should be sorry, therefore, if he were to press the clause, as I can assure him there is no desire or intention on the part of the Government to sell any of those lands, and there is no proposal for that purpose before the War Office; but it is possible that the necessity of acquiring new land in place of some of the outlying portions of the present land may arise. The hon. Member has anticipated that possibility by providing that the Secretary of State should have power to exchange. That power does not, however, meet the case of the Government's desiring to acquire land from one owner and sell to another. To insist upon the clause would be to unduly fetter the hands of the Government, who, it must be remembered, are pressing this Bill solely in the interest of military efficiency, and not with any commercial object. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press the clause.
  MR. STUART RENDEL: As one of the Members of the Committee who voted in favour of the clause now proposed, I desire to say I think it would be a most unfortunate thing if the War Office were put under the necessity of carrying on a large land-jobbing business. We had it in evidence before the Committee that probably the value of the land when it first became the property of the Government was not more than £4 an acre. There is evidence that the effect of this Bill in extinguishing common rights will be to raise the value of the land to £50 an acre. It must be borne in mind that, whilst the use of the land for the specific purpose contemplated is not meant to be a use of a temporary character, future changes in the Service may render some new arrangement necessary, and the land may then have to be dealt with in some other manner. Undoubtedly, if they
  382
  find they have any superfluity of land the War Office will be bound to sell, and they will, perhaps, be able to sell at £200 or £300 an acre. The local public are making great sacrifices in regard to this Bill, and I think it is only fair that Parliament should be consulted before the land is dealt with in any way that has not obtained the special sanction of Parliament.
  MR. BRYCE: I hope the Government will accept the Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Stuart Rendel) has shown that this is a matter which circumstances are very likely to change. Not only may the War Office find that there is no occasion for this land, but new arrangements may be made under new conditions of rifle practice which may make it necessary for the Government to buy back land which they have already sold. If the Government do not intend to sell, as the Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Brodrick) says, there surely can be no great hardship in their accepting this Amendment. The Committee must remember that the land was originally subject to common rights, and that it could only be divested of those rights with the consent of this House. The natural thing would have been that it should revert to its prior condition in which it could not have been sold except with the authority of the House, and I do not see that any reason has been given to prevent the House from exercising that authority, considering how improvident some of the bargains made by public departments have been——
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think the right hon. Gentleman is hardly justified in making statements of that kind without giving instances.
  MR. BRYCE: I thought that it was a matter of common notoriety.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It is just the reverse.
  MR. BRYCE: We have frequently had cases in which sales by the Woods and Forests Department were questioned in this House as being improvident. I shall take the first opportunity open to me of substantiating the remarks I have made. I make no imputations on the War Office in this matter, but, in view of the fact that imputations have been made, I think the War Office should

  383
  not have the opportunity of making these sales without the consent of Parliament.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I think most of us on this side of the House will be able to give illustrations of the improvidence of bargains made by public departments. I myself can promise to give one with regard to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners when the time serves. I venture to support this clause, and I would point out that it was rejected in Committee simply by the casting vote of the Chairman. We all know that when a Committee is equally divided on a question it is the rule for the Chairman to give his casting vote against a new proposal. There is one important circumstance which should not be lost sight of in connection with this matter. It was stated in evidence that, in consequence of the ranges of the National Rifle Association being established at Bisley, Purbright would probably become a large centre of population. If that be so, as the rights of the neighbouring population have been so materially curtailed in respect of the great tract of land over which shooting will now take place, I think it highly important that something should be done with the view of benefiting the people in the locality. The question of using these outlying bits of land for shooting purposes does not arise in the minds of those who have inspected the plans. There is one considerable plot of land on the south-east of the main tract, and in my judgment it would be very likely to become an important site for a public park or recreation ground in view of the increased population of the district. It was in view of preserving the rights of the public, and of giving them the chance of acquiring such pieces of land for the public benefit that I voted for this clause in the Committee, and I shall vote for it again if it is pressed. Cannot the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill undertake that; in the event of any considerable plots of land being sold a right of preemption shall be given to the County Council? I do not think the objection of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Brodrick) to the clause that it would tie the hands of the War Office too much would apply to this suggestion.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I wish to point out one effect of the proposed clause. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said the Local Authorities might desire to acquire some of this land. But if this clause is inserted and the Local Authorities wish to purchase half an acre of land for a school or a recreation ground or anything else they will be unable to do it. It is quite certain this clause is far too stringent in its effect, and it would be impossible for any Government to assent to it.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that the public enjoy this land for recreation now, and there is not the least chance of the Local Authorities desiring to buy them for these purposes. No answer has been given to my statement that the War Office may sell these bits of land. A considerable number of them have been sold in the past and no doubt will be sold in the future, although, perhaps, not by my hon. Friend (Mr. Brodrick), because he is a Surrey man, who knows the value of these lands to the public. I hope the House will assent to the Motion.
  MR. BRODRICK: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that during the four years I have been in office no pressure whatever has been brought to bear on us to sell. We have no desire to sell. We want to keep our property. But if this clause be adopted we shall be fettered as no public department is fettered.
  MR. CONYBEARE: The suggestion I make is that the Local Authorities should have a voice in the disposal of this land, so that they might prevent the War Office from disposing of little bits of land which might be available for public purposes. Is it not possible to defer further consideration in order to provide a means of meeting these scruples?
  MR. BRODRICK: I fear the proposal of the hon. Member does not meet cases such as I have referred to, where we should possibly buy from one owner and sell to another.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I think the contention advanced by the right hon. Gentleman is most reasonable, and his proposal a necessary one. We are giving the Department great power to close roads, but that I

  385
  think is quite right in view of the new range. But such an Amendment as this is necessary for this reason: A number of rich people have built houses in the neighbourhood where land could be had cheap, and these are people who will be quite ready to buy up pieces of land, and, being on friendly relations with the general and other officers, to make advantageous arrangements for themselves in this way. I think the hands of the Secretary for War should be tied in this way, because it may be that some Secretary for War in the future, after this land has been sold at a cheap rate, may want to buy back the land for another range, or an artillery range, or some other purpose, and then we should have to pay 10 times the price at which the land was sold. I think an Amendment such as that proposed, or in the modified shape suggested by the hon. Member for Camborne, is extremely necessary. If any hon. Member has been to Aldershot and seen the houses there, he will find they are owned by exactly that class of people who would be willing to buy up public land at a cheap rate for adding to their gardens and pleasure grounds.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I understand that the Government are willing that the Local Authorities should be consulted.
  MR. BRODRICK: We are willing to give all consideration to the Local Authorities.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: If there is a provision requiring that notice shall be given before selling, I shall be content with that as an alternative clause.
  MR. BRODRICK: It would be extremely difficult to provide by a clause for any considerable interval before selling, but there is every disposition to consider the Local Authorities in every possible way.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: These lands are open to the public.
  MR. CONYBEARE: The proposal is simply that notice of the desire on the part of the War Office to sell should be communicated to the Local Authorities, leaving to the latter the option of coming forward with an offer to acquire the land. We do not seek to have them called into council on the subject; but it is fair in such cases that, such sales of land should not be
  386
  conducted by private contracts behind the backs of the people. I do not, as I did in Committee, suggest that the sale should be by public auction; that might be detrimental to the public. What we want to secure is that these sales should not be simply conducted in an office by the War Department, but that the County Council or Highway Board should have the opportunity of putting itself in competition with private buyers to acquire the land for local purposes on behalf of the population generally.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: We will consider the suggestion, and, if it is possible to meet it, we will introduce an Amendment for the pnrpose in another place. Hon. Members are aware' that we have to send the Bill there, in order that it may be considered by a Select Committee. The suggestion is not an unreasonable one.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Under these circumstances I will not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill reported without Amendment; read a third time, and passed.

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES BILL.—(No. 375.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now considered."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
EARL COMPTON: I believe it will be more for the convenience of the House if I make those remarks I have to make now rather than later on. I have no wish to impede the progress into law of a measure that will, I believe, be useful both in London and the country. At the same time, before we proceed further I should like to have an assurance from Her Majesty's Government that they do not consider this a final measure as regards the reforms so urgently necessary for the better housing of the working classes. We have had a Consolidation Bill and an Amendment Bill now amalgamated, but the Amendment Bill only touches the fringe of the question, and it is impossible to convince anybody who is interested in the question that this is a great legislative achievement. It is only now that we have this Bill before us that it is possible to amend it

387
so that we can approach the solution of a question that has long been exercising our minds. Thanks, however, are due to the right hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he has met various Amendments, and to the Government for bringing the matter forward at all. I mention some of the points upon which the Bill is wanting, in order that the right hon. Gentleman may give us an assurance that these matters will be dealt with before the And of next Session, which is likely to be a long one. This is not much to ask, for into the question with which the Bill deals no Party feeling enters, and if the Government will undertake a further Amendment Bill they will find the Opposition ready to cooperate with them in doing what is necessary for the subject. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Part I of the Bill, or "Cross's Act," has been but slightly amended, and the process under it is still complex, tedious, and expensive. At the present moment the London County Council have under consideration an application made 13 years ago under Cross's Act, and the area concerned is pretty much in the same condition now as when the application was made. We wish to have a simpler machinery, and until we have that it is not possible that much good can be effected under the Act. First comes the representation, then inquiry, the preparation of maps and plans, the public notification during the months of September, October, and November, and then the notices served upon owners. At present a visit to a locality by the officers of the London County Council immediately becomes known, and local owners, fancying that something is going to happen, at once begin to patch and repair, so that when the question of compensation arises they may make a larger claim. I may also mention that the Bill does nothing as regards amendment of the re-housing difficulty. We have the right, under Lord Shaftesbury's Act, to erect buildings within a certain area, but we have not the right to erect buildings outside the metropolitan area. This is a matter that requires to be taken in hand. Then as regards unhealthy dwellings we have actually less power under this Bill than we had before the Acts were consolidated and amended, owing to the repeal of
388
some of the clauses in "Torrens's Act." I think the right hon. Gentleman said he is going to introduce some Amendment in regard to sanitary measures next Session, but I hope we shall not again commence to have other Bills incorporated with this, and that we shall have to refer to the Nuisances Removable Act and other sanitary measures to complete operations under this Bill, but that the Bill itself will be amended. Then as regards the acquisition of land under the Land Clauses Act the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has said that he does not consider the clauses of the Land Clauses Consolidation Act satisfactory. I hope, therefore, some steps will be taken to amend those clauses, so as to make them more workable. There are also two different systems of compensation, one under Part I. and another under Part II. of the Bill. I think it would be infinitely better that the same system should hold in both. Then we have to consider whether the Home Office or the Local Government Board is the authority. I do not know whether there is any jealousy between the Departments as to which should have the more work, but I do think it would be better that we should know which Government Department is the authority in all these matters. The Government have given us a small Amendment Bill, and we are not ungrateful, though, for my part, I say it is but a crumb where I should have preferred a whole loaf. I do not desire to offer any opposition to the Bill, which is a useful Bill so far as it goes. I only want now to get some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the Government do not look upon this measure as final, and that they will do their best to introduce a further amending Bill next Session which may be incorporated in the present Bill. That, I believe, would satisfy thousands of people in the country. Since this question has been before the House I have received letters from all parts of England, and from various people who have been working hard in this matter. These people ask me one question, namely, whether they will be able in the future to deal with small unsanitary areas which are not actually unfit for habitation. My answer has been that this Bill will hare no effect

389
whatever in that direction, but that I am in hopes that before next Session is passed Her Majesty's Government will have earned our gratitude by putting it in our power to deal with such areas. I have not put down any Amendments, I have not started any great principle, because I know that at the end of the Session it is impossible to go into the whole question. I shall be glad, however, to have some assurance that this is not, in the eyes of the Her Majesty's Government, a final measure.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): My hon. Friend was good enough to give me notice that he would make some remarks upon this Bill, but I was under the impression he would make them on the Motion for the Third Reading. However, I do not complain of any observations he makes at any time with regard to the Bill, because I recognise freely the desire he and those who act with him have shown to push forward as well as they can this Bill which they regard as useful legislation. My hon. Friend wants an assurance from me that Her Majesty's Government do not regard this Bill as a final Bill. I do not know whether any Government is ever prepared to use the word "final" with regard to any proposal made, but I certainly will not use the word in regard to this Bill. I agree that the Cross Acts were not largely dealt with in this Bill. The Government thought that the pressing needs were best met by an improvement in the machinery of the Torrens Acts, because, if properly worked, they will do away with a great many of the evils complained of. With regard to the Torrens Acts, I agree that a very large amount of time is necessary before the Acts can be put into operation. That, no doubt, is to a considerable extent owing to the notices that have to be given with regard to the taking of land under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts. The hon. Gentleman asks me whether we will be prepared to deal soon with the Cross Acts, and also with any imperfections which are acknowledged to exist under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts. Having taken this matter in hand I shall feel it a great privilege to be able to deal with the whole question, so that there may be one
390
measure dealing with the subject generally. But so far from this, as the noble Lord seems to think, being only a small measure, I think that anyone who looks carefully into it will consider it an important step in the direction in which the noble Lord looks. Even if the Bill had done nothing but consolidate existing Acts in relation to the dwellings of the working classes, it would be a most valuable measure. But the Bill also deals with a matter which has been found to be one of the greatest difficulties in the way of Local Authorities—namely, the undue amount of compensation which, under the law, has hitherto been payable to persons whose property is taken. The Committee to whom this Bill was referred will acknowledge that, so far as the question of compensation is concerned, we have gone as far as it was possible with justice to go in order to grapple with this difficulty. We have reduced by every means in our power the amount of claim to compensation, and we have provided that no compensation whatever shall be payable in respect of profits derived owing to the premises being used for a greater number of people than they can legitimately accommodate, or in respect of profits derived through the premises being used for any illegal purpose whatsoever. It will also be acknowledged that the amendments we have made in the Torrens Acts will be of enormous value to Local Authorities. The procedure has been very greatly simplified, the principle on which the Committee proceeded being that where an owner does not, after notice, place an insanitary dwelling in a proper state, the building shall be demolished. The noble Lord referred to the provisions of the Torrens Act, which made it necessary in the case of an unhealthy dwelling for the Local Authorities to consult a surveyor, and after this is done, there might be an appeal with regard to the works suggested by the surveyor. It seems to me there has been an endless hedge of appeals and counter appeals in regard to the work done, which has not only added to the cost of carrying out the law, but has prevented the law from being carried out in many cases. I think it will be found that the provisions of this Bill are much more workable. The Local Authority will be able to say to the owner of an

391
insanitary dwelling, "We intend to apply for a closing order, it is for you to do whatever works are necessary in order to put the house in a proper sanitary condition." The noble Lord complained that certain provisions of the Public Health Acts with regard to nuisances have not been incorporated into this Bill, but this measure deals with dwellings which are unfit for human habitation, and the provisions of the Public Health Acts, to which the noble Lord refers, are inapplicable. The noble Lord alluded to a statement I have made that we hope next Session to do for the Public Health Acts that which we have done this Session with regard to these Acts. I repeat, that I hope that next Session we may consolidate and amend the Public Health Acts, and that the Amendments which we will propose will meet with the same cordial acceptance at the hands of the noble Lord and his friends as the proposals of the Government with regard to the housing of the working classes. The noble Lord seems to take exception to different principles of compensation being applied to different parts of this Bill. But it would not be fair to apply the same principle of compensation to all cases in which premises are compulsorily acquired. My noble Friend omitted to say that we have in this Bill provided for the adoption of a scheme which we regard as one which is likely to be fruitful of the greatest good—we have provided for what we may call an intermediate scheme. Under the scheme a Local Authority will be able to deal with crowded alleys and courts. The houses individually may not be unfit for human habitation, but, owing to the want of air and light, these alleys and courts may be rendered insanitary areas. The Local Authorities may, if they choose, pull down the houses and make open spaces, and in that way contribute largely to the health of the community. We have provided against the owners of property taking part in any decision which may be arrived at by a District Board or Vestry with regard to the property in which they are interested, and we impose heavy fines upon the owners of insanitary dwellings. The power of the London County Council is much enlarged by this Bill, and I feel sure that when the Bill comes to be put into operation it will be found to be
392
enormously beneficial in securing what we all desire—namely, an improvement in the housing of the people. I have to thank the noble Lord and his friends for the way in which they have met this Bill, and for the assistance which they have afforded, without any Party bias, to the consideration of the Bill in the Committee.
MR. PICKERSGILL: I rise for the purpose of asking the right hon. Gentleman if he will during the recess be good enough to turn his attention to two particular points. The first is the machinery for assessing compensation. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether it may not be possible to set up a Special Commission, or some other authority, by which the question of compensation may be cheaply and readily settled. The second point to which I desire to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention is the incidence of cost. This consolidated Bill makes no attempt to adjust the incidence of cost, although the cost is the crux of the whole case. We have gone on year after year piling burden upon burden upon the shoulders of one particular class, namely, the unfortunate occupier. It is high time that something were done to shift part of that burden, at all events, to the backs of the ground landlords.
CAPTAIN BETHELL: I trust it will be possible next Session for the right hon. Gentleman to take the Public Health Acts in hand for the purpose of consolidation. And while congratulating the President of the Local Government Board upon this general Bill, the value of which I recognise, I feel obliged to express regret that the principle of including the County Council as the authority to take part in matters connected with the public health is not more jealously guarded than in the Bill before us. One principle which is not very satisfactory is, allowing the County Council, when District Authorities cannot properly do the work they are expected to do, to take the burden on their own shoulders. I have some Amendments on the Paper to meet these points, but it has been represented to me that at this period of the Session it would be inconvenient to move them. I, therefore, do not intend to persevere

393
with the Amendments save on one or two small points.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, considered.
MR. JESSE COLLINGS: The right hon. Gentleman appealed to the Committee not to interfere to a great extent with Cross's Acts, because, he said, if they were thoroughly dealt with it would be impossible to pass this Bill this Session. As the Bill contains so many valuable provisions, to say nothing of its feature of consolidation, which is very important, we all thought it would be a great public loss if the measure did not go through this Session, and, therefore, we avoided amending these particular Acts—the General Housing Acts. But the right hon. Gentleman amended them himself by the insertion of the words which I now move to leave out. My Amendment will simply restore the Acts to? the position they occupy at present.
MR. RITCHIE: Agreed.
MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I understand the right hon. Gentleman agrees to accept the Amendment. I am much obliged to him, and will not detain the House by any further argument.
Amendment moved, Clause 24, line 12, leave out from "shall," to end of Sub-section, and insert "be supplied out of the Local Rates or out of moneys borrowed in pursuance of this Act."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
MR. RITCHIE: I move to leave out Clause 29, for the reason that Clause 93 provides for the same thing.
Amendment moved, page 16, "To leave out Clause 29."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
Question, "That Clause 29 stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
Another Amendment agreed to, Clause 32, page 18, lines 4 and 5, leave out "shall thereupon direct an inquiry, and," and insert "after causing an inquiry to be held."
MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to move, in Clause 3, page 18, Sub-section 3, at end, to add—
"Provided that the Local Authority may make to every such tenant a reasonable allowance on account of his expenses in removing, and the amount of the said allowance shall he a civil debt due from the owner of the dwelling house to the Local Authority, and shall he recoverable summarily".
MR. RITCHIE (interrupting): I propose in principle to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member, but I think the matter is one which should be dealt with by the Court when the closing order is applied for. Therefore, after communication with the hon. Member, I propose to add—
"Provided that the Local Authority may make to every such tenant such reasonable allowance on account of his expenses in removing as may have been authorised by the Court making the closing order, which authority the Court is hereby authorised to give, and the amount of such allowance shall be a civil debt due from the owner of the dwelling house to the Local Authority and shall he recoverable summarily."
Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
CAPTAIN BETHELL: I desire to move, in Clause 36, to strike out "a Court of Quarter Sessions," in order to insert "the County Council." Why has the right hon. Gentleman put in the Court of Quarter Sessions here? The appeal, so far as I can understand the matter, is a purely administrative question to begin with, all that has to be decided being whether a particular house is inhabitable or an obstruction. The question is not a judicial one, but one of administration, and, that being so, it is a mistake to bring in the Court of Quarter Sessions at all. Under certain circumstances the County Council will themselves be the authority for carrying out the particular arrangement, and it would be unsatisfactory to have an appeal from the County Council itself to the Quarter Sessions. Why there should be an appeal from an administrative body to the Quarter Sessions I cannot for the life of me conceive.
Amendment proposed, in page 19, line 39, to leave out the words "a Court of Quarter Sessions," and insert the words "the County Council."—(Commander Bethell.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'a Court of Quarter Sessions' stand part of the Bill."
MR. RITCHIE: If my hon. and gallant Friend had been a member of the Grand Committee, he would have known that this question was twice thoroughly discussed there, and the suggestion made by the hon. Member decisively negatived, and that by a majority that was by no means a Party one. It was decided to maintain the law as it stands, and the decision was supported by some of the most advanced politicians in the House. My hon. and gallant Friend supposes that this has been put in as an alteration of the existing law, but the Court of Quarter Sessions is in the original Act, and there is a great deal of good ground for it. The question is not one of administration, and sanitary matters do not enter into it. When a house has been closed, the question arises as to whether or not it shall be taken away from the owner and demolished, and the existing law provides that the owner shall have the opportunity of going before the Court of Quarter Sessions, which is a Court of law, and before which witnesses can be examined.
MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: This Amendment was carefully considered in the Committee, and, after consideration, rejected by a majority of something like five to one.
EARL COMPTON: I do not think the version we have had of what took place on the Grand Committee is quite correct. I proposed two Amendments. The first was negatived by a large majority. I then endeavoured to meet the views of the advanced politicians, and succeeded, more or less; at any rate, they all voted for me on the second occasion. There was a Division of 16 to 9, which is not quite 5 to 1, as the Chairman of the Committee has stated. I am glad the question has been again raised, but I must assure the hon. and gallant Member that it is raised in vain, for even I have given up the point. It is a good thing to see an hon. Member on the opposite side of the House stand tip and contend that the County Councils should be allowed to deal with these matters without appeal to the Quarter Sessions. It is this appeal to Quarter Sessions which is the great hindrance to
396
the proper carrying out of Torrens's Act.
MR. LAWSON: This point is one of principle, and should be decided by the House. The County Council is already made a Court of Appeal in certain matters in case of dispute with the Local Authority, or where a ratepayer thinks himself aggrieved by its order, and I see no reason why those powers should not be extended, if by doing so we can facilitate the working of the Act. Appeal to Quarter Sessions seriously interferes with the provision of better houses for the working classes.
MR. ESSLEMONT: I do not wish to carry on the controversy as to what occurred in Committee; I only wish to say that if it were proposed in Scotland to give an appeal to the Quarter Sessions—supposing we had such a body—I, for one, should give the proposal the most strenuous opposition.
MR. ROWNTREE: I hope the House will not accept the Amendment. It is said that this is a question of principle, but there is another question of principle which may be involved, and which would create strong opposition on the part of non-county boroughs.
MR. HOWELL: I think the House will admit that I am an advanced politician; nevertheless I opposed the Amendment in the Committee, and shall oppose it now. It may happen that the property is not in an unsanitary condition at all; and I am altogether opposed to the taking away of a man's property without giving him power to go to a Court of Law. There may come a time, as the machinery of the County Councils is perfected, when you may be able to entrust all matters of this kind to such bodies. We have not yet arrived at that period. We have not that absolute wisdom and purity in our Local Government which we could desire—as was evidenced not so long ago in the case of the Metropolitan Board of Works, which is now dead and gone. In some of our municipal boroughs also we have had evidences that it would not be safe to allow them to take away a man's property without giving him a right of appeal to a Court of Law. I stood

397
opposed to the Amendment in the Grand Committee, and I stand opposed to it now; and if we divide on the question I shall vote with the Government.
CAPTAIN BETHELL: I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Other Amendments agreed to.
CAPTAIN BETHELL: I would suggest the insertion of the words "of the Local or County Authority" after the words "officers of health." If the local medical officer has a right to point out insanitary conditions he should report to the Local Authority. I am aware that substantially it is the intention they should act, but I think he should report directly to the Local Board.
Amendment proposed, in page 30, line 13, after the word "health," to insert the words "of the Local or County Authority."—(Commander Bethell.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. RITCHIE: I do not quite understand the object of my hon. and gallant Friend in moving the Amendment. This object is amply provided for under Clause 53. He wishes that instead of the Medical Officer of Health of the County Council reporting to the Council he shall report to the Local Authority; but surely the officer should report to the Authority under whom he acts, and it is for that Authority to take action.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed, in Clause 46, line 14, after the word "representation," to insert the words "or complaint."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed, in Clause 46, line 18, after the word "Authority," to insert the words "or to the medical officer of such Authority."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
EARL COMPTON: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that makes sense of the clause, or if it is good English? Should not the word "as" be introduced to make it read?
MR. RITCHIE: I think for the present it had better go as it is. It
398
is not, I believe, an uncommon thing for an Act of Parliament to be ungrammatical.
Amendment agreed to.
Other Amendments made.
MR. RITCHIE: With the object of preparing for the Amendment I shall propose to Clause 56, dealing with areas situated in more than one county, I move the omission of the words from "certificate" to "and" in lines 17.
Amendment proposed, in Clause 55, line 17, to leave out from the word "certificate" to the word "and."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
MR. HOBHOUSE: I understand the right hon. Gentleman has the same object in his Amendment as I have in the Amendment of which I have given notice, but we differ in that he would have the application made to the authority having the larger jurisdiction in the area, and I would have application made to both authorities over the area. I do not see quite why the jurisdiction of one of the County Authorities should be excluded.
MR. RITCHIE: It is undesirable that two applications should be made to two County Councils before anything can be done in a particular area, and it is desirable that the action taken should be under one authority. Therefore, I propose in Clause 56 to provide that the authority shall be with the body having the more extended jurisdiction in the area in question.
Amendment agreed to.
Other Amendments made.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Brodrick.)
SIR WALTER FOSTER: I have to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having so much improved the Bill in Committee. He has made it more effective, by accepting my Amendments to make one part of the Bill imperative, and I am glad he has shown throughout such a conciliatory spirit. The Local Authorities now have a measure under which they will be able to work with great efficiency for the improvement of the public health.
SIR L. PLAYFAIR: I am glad to join in the congratulations of my hon. Friend in regard to the improvements which have been introduced into the Bill, and I likewise congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having passed a consolidatory measure. The consolidation in itself is an enormous gain to the community, but important improvements of the law have been introduced.
MR. RITCHIE: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman for the kind words they have used in regard to my action and the Bill generally. I should like to say this final word. Now that the law on this subject has been consolidated and amended in such a way as to remove a great many difficulties, I hope that Local Authorities will feel the responsibility now cast upon them, and take care that the law is put into operation. That will result in an enormous advantage to the public health of the community and the general good of the country.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

CENSUS (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.—(No. 385.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. RITCHIE: I shall have to trouble the House for but a short time in reference to this Bill. The House will readily understand that when the year approaches when the census has to be taken the Government receive a large number of suggestions for its improvement. I have had no experience of the suggestions made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer before he introduces his Budget, but if they are anything like as numerous as the suggestions which have been made to me with regard to the census, the right hon. Gentleman must have a great deal of work cast on him. The suggestions which have been made to the Government, from time to time, are easily divisible under two heads—one a desire for increased information, and the other a desire that the census shall be taken at more frequent intervals than hitherto. I can assure the gentlemen who have made suggestions as to the first point that the Government sympathise with
  400
  those who desire to take advantage of an opportunity like this to obtain accurate and valuable information upon a large number of subjects. It will be admitted, however, that such information would be dearly bought if obtained at the expense of accuracy. The more numerous the questions to be put to the householders the greater the chance not only, perhaps, of meeting with opposition on the part of the householder, but of receiving answers which are not entirely satisfactory from the point of view of accuracy. In illustration of the minute information which is desired by some persons, representations have been made, not only that the householder should be asked as to whether or not he comes under the great head of employed or employer, but also, if employed, that he should give particulars, for instance, as to what particular seam of coal he works in. Another class of suggestions made is that some provision should be made by which the information obtained through the Census Returns may be made available for purposes other than statistical. One hon. Member has urged very strongly that the number of children and their ages would be most valuable to the School Board Authorities, and ought to be supplied to them. No doubt this information would be of some value if so applied, but I deprecate in the strongest possible manner the making use of information obtained for purely statistical purposes for such purposes as have been indicated. If we departed from the quasi-confidential character of the information sought for, a spirit of hostility would undoubtedly be raised on the part of those who are asked to give the answers, thereby adding enormously to the difficulties of obtaining accurate information. The greatest mistake would be made if people were led to suppose that the information asked for would be used for the purpose of setting the law against them, either with regard to the attendance of children at school or any other subject. Another representation has been made as to the period which elapses between the taking of the census, and the establishment of something like a permanent census office has been advocated. A more frequent census would undoubtedly be attended with many advantages. There are many

  401
  strong arguments to be used in favour of taking a quinquennal census, but the question is one largely of cost. If Parliament at some future time should consider that the cost may properly be incurred, I have no doubt that information of considerable importance and great value may be so obtained. The Government thought that the best course to pursue in regard to these various suggestions was to refer the matter to a Select Committee. That was accordingly done, and a Committee was appointed, which sat under the chairmanship of the Chairman of Ways and Means. They have gone carefully into the whole subject, and, for my part, I beg to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the pains and trouble he and the Committee have taken in their inquiry. The conclusions arrived at by the Committee are—(1) As to the information to be obtained, they suggest that on the front of the Return should appear columns in which the householder can enter whether he is an employer or employed, or neither. (2) That persons living on their means shall be invited to state the fact in the Return; and (3) That the number of rooms occupied by a family, if less than five rooms, shall be stated on the face of the Return. I can imagine many difficulties arising in connection with the first point. I can imagine that some persons may feel great doubts as to which of these columns they should enter their names in, and many persons will enter themselves as employers of labour when they are for all practical purposes employed. In deference, however, to the recommendation of the Committee, the Government propose to adopt the suggestion which they have made. In the ensuing census, therefore, it is proposed to ask the householder to state whether he is employed or employer, or neither, and whether he is living on his means. No change in the Bill is necessary to carry out these recommendations. It is merely a question as to the form of the Paper and the Instructions, and this can be done under the old form of the Bill. But a slight modification of the Bill is necessary in order to enable the householder to be asked what number of rooms the family occupies, if less than five; and this change is provided for in the Bill. As to a more frequent census, and a permanent census office,
  402
  the Committee reported that midway between the decennial periods the number of the population, ages, and sexes should be ascertained, and that a small branch of the Census Department ought to be established. But it should be noticed that the Committee were not unanimous. Sir Reginald Welby has made an alternative suggestion, and the question of cost is one which remains largely in doubt. In these circumstances the Government do not think it desirable to provide in the present Bill for the taking of the census five years after next year. But the form of the Bill does not in any way prejudice or prejudge the consideration of a quinquennial census. The Government will undertake to carefully consider the Report of the Committee, and to go into the estimates of the cost; and before the period arrives they will be prepared to state the conclusions come to. Some evidence has been received by the Committee on the subject of a Religious Census, but no recommendations have been made. There are indications in the Report, however, which seem to show that at least some members of the Committee were not adverse to a Religious Census. Personally, I think there is a good deal to be said in its favour. But the Government have not thought it advisable to go beyond the recommendations of the Committee, and, therefore, there will be no provision in the Bill for taking a Religious Census. I assure the House that the Government will carefully consider all the suggestions which have been made by the Committee, other than those to which I have referred and which do not entail legislation, and we will endeavour to see that their recommendations are carried out. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: I would point out that while as between England and Ireland the Bills are utterly distinct, the difference as between England and Scotland is very slight, and in the latter case mainly consists in this, that while in England the authority for taking the census is the Local Government Board in Scotland it

  403
  is the Secretary for Scotland. But there is one point in regard to Scotland on which I may offer a suggestion with regard to England. Under the Scotch Bill means are provided of ascertaining how many persons speak Gaelic, and whether they speak Gaelic only, or both Gaelic and English. It seems strange to me that in a Bill affecting England and Wales there is no corresponding provision with regard to those who speak Welsh only, or Welsh and English, and I shall venture in Committee to move an Amendment on the subject, although I would not press it if the Welsh Members object to it. I cannot see why you should recognise the ancient language of Scotland and take no account of the ancient language of Wales. I concur with what has been said about the difficulty of getting from the people, full information as to the various points on which information is sought. But, on the other hand, it appear to me that a census which does not contain information as to how many of the people can read and write is scarcely worthy of a great country like this. I venture to say that were a census taken in France or Germany care would be taken to ascertain this fact. Enormous sums have been spent on education in this country for many years, and surely it is of the first importance, from a statistical point of view, that you should have a clear understanding as to how many people are still unable to read and write, and how many have acquired that knowledge. I think that the census for the three countries ought to contain the power of ascertaining whether the children are attending school or not. It may be thought that this could be ascertained in another way, but I venture to say it cannot. You may obtain the number of those attending the great public schools, as well as the boarding schools and Board schools, and also the National schools of Ireland, but there are numbers of children who do not go to any of those schools, but who attend what are called private adventure schools, kept by clergymen and others, and it is of great importance that we should be able to ascertain how many attend those schools and how many are left. I cannot see why the information I ask for should not be given, and I will give the House, when in Committee, the oppor-
  404
  tunity of deciding whether we should obtain that information or not.
  MR. F. S. POWELL: I wish to draw the attention of the Government to a matter of considerable importance. I refer to the clause of the Bill which deals with particulars as to whether houses are inhabited or uninhabited. This question is one as to which I believe there will be great difficulty in acquiring reliable information; but I think that much may be done in obtaining a great improvement in this respect, and I hope, therefore, my right hon. Friend will afford facilities for enabling the authorities to secure a better system. With regard to another point, I am glad the Government are inclined to regard with greater favour the idea of a quinquennial census. I I think, also, we ought to have more particulars as to the occupations and age of the people. The population is so shifting that great advantage would be derived from a better system of obtaining more accurate details. The importance of accurate statistics as to the occupations of the population is a matter, as one representing a mining district, I cannot too strongly urge upon the Government. We know that men who are miners in one part of the country will be agricultural labourers in another; and it is very important, in the interest of Public Health, that the nature of their occupations should be clearly ascertained, because the question arises whether improved regulations might not be made, especially in regard to those who are engaged in mining. With regard to the question of a religious census, I think it important from a national point of view that we should have particulars as to those who attend the services or regard themselves as members of the National Church. I am quite aware of the difficulties that have arisen on this point, but I think they might be got over. This religious census is taken in Ireland, and I cannot see why that which is good for Ireland can be bad for England, nor why our Irish friends should have elaborate statistics which are denied to this country. I regret very much that provision for statistics as to the religion of the people does not appear on the Bill for the present year, and I hope that in future years this omission may be remedied.
  MR. COURTNEY: The President of the Local Government Board has made a kind reference to the labours of the Committee of which I have had the honour to be Chairman. While appreciating the kind words of the President of the Local Government Board, I regret to find that the Committee's labours have produced so small a result. Their chief recommendations were a quinquennial census, and the establishment of a permanent Census Office. Everything else would have followed, as a matter of course, from these. If there was to be no quinquennial census, a Census Office might represent a waste of organising labour; but if there was to be such a census, a permanent Census Office was almost a necessity. The Committee went into the inquiry with no definite opinions one way or another; but the evidence given before them was overwhelming in favour of a quinquennial census, if the census was to be useful for legislative purposes. The fluctuations of the population all over the country, especially in the mining and manufacturing districts, are so considerable and remarkable that at the end of five years the results of the last census became of little value. The Committee had before them many medical officers, who were all strongly in favour of a quinquennial census. This is, moreover, the practice of almost every civilised community, not only on the Continent, but also in the colonies of Great Britain. We were unanimous in that conclusion. With respect to the question raised by Sir Reginald Welby, we were unable to state what cost would be involved in it. We knew it would be a limited cost. Taking it at its maximum of 10 years, that would be exactly double the cost of the quinquennial census, and the result would be comparatively the insignificant sum of £170,000 additional cost. Considering the sums we pay in respect of matters to which this is ancillary, and which this additional expenditure might tend to economise, I must confess that I look to the question of expense as savouring rather of delusion. Sir Reginald Welby did his duty, and made an addition to the Report of the Committee over which I presided. But I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if it had come before him, would have done his duty; and if it should come
  406
  before him, will do his duty by putting that addition aside. I speak now as one who has been both inside and outside the Treasury. I know what it is to do duty in the capacity of raising my watch-dog bark, and then being patted on the back and told I was a "good dog." But the thing has been done in spite of my warning; and if I had been in a superior position in the Treasury, I should have done the same thing. Sir Reginald Welby has simply done right in calling attention to the question; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer I do hope will, sooner or later—as soon as possible—act upon the broader view and proceed with the expenditure which has been recommended. It is of a very moderate character indeed, and such as ought to be freely and generously indulged in respect to the work which I have suggested. If a quinquennial census is to be taken, the Registrar and his assistants must be continuously at work in the preceding years. There ought to be two or three officers always at work on the census. In other countries, and in our colonies, they are, in fact, always hard at work on the census, and they are able to do really good work. There were many suggestions of importance which we were not able to entertain in any degree, but the advantage of which we felt if they could be carried out. If we had the plan of a quinquennial census, then the other things to which statistical inquiry was directed would be carried out almost as a matter of course For instance, there is the important matter of an industrial census. The industrial census of England is very inferior in apparent results to, at all events, the census of the United States and of Switzerland. I say apparent results, because their accuracy is impugned. Therefore, though an industrial census is less full, it may be more trustworthy, and more valuable in the end. While we were unable to examine into the charges of inaccuracy brought against the censuses of other countries, we were fully convinced of the inaccuracy of our own in this respect. We had very much pressed upon us the extreme deficiency of the industrial census of England, and there is no doubt that, as a picture of our working population, the industrial census that we have taken is very unsatisfactory. It is not suffi-

  407
  ciently detailed; it is not exact; and I despair of your getting anything like a real description of the industrial organisation of our country unless you get more permanent machinery, and the service of men whose attention is constantly directed to the compilation of these details. So with reference to the other points brought before us by medical officers. We were constantly impressed by the necessity of getting a permanent official staff to do the work. I hope my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board will see that something is done towards this end, in concurrence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I understood the hon. Member for Wigan to recommend something in the nature of a religious census. The Committee approached that subject with a perfectly dispassionate mind. It put on record the fact that a religious census is taken in all our colonies, where, I suppose, religious separation is as marked as it is in the United Kingdom. It also put on record the fact that the religious census is taken in Ireland. Although, on the last occasion, the Return was made optional, still I think, out of the whole population of Ireland, there were only some 3,000 persons who did not give information as to their religious belief. But we felt that there were political difficulties which prevailed, and we were unable to advise the present Government to occupy a position which had not been taken up by its predecessors. I am not quite sure whether, in the discussion in 1880, I did not then take an opinion in favour of making the Return. If the political condition of the country would allow it, I should be delighted if the Return were made; and I have no doubt, just as in Ireland you have got a Return after Disestablishment, so in Scotland you would get a Return without objection if you got Disestablishmont in Scotland. Objections would disappear if once you had Disestablishment. It was so in Ireland, and it would be so in England. But whatever the country is going to do in regard to the manner of taking the census, it is extremely necessary that you should have good workers at the bottom. Now, the choice of enumerators is a very important matter. In Ireland the police are used, and they do the work extremely well. But we cannot do that in Great
  408
  Britain, where the police are not an Imperial body. Nor could the postmen or retired soldiers be used. We were obliged to leave the question very much as we found it, namely, to leave it to the District Registrars, subject to the approbation of the Superintendent Registrars, subject, again, to the Registrar General. But we suggested that a rather stringent Circular should be issued to the District Registrars with respect to the choice of enumerators. There is another matter on which we have a better prospect than on the last occasion. In 1881 the Registrar, in working out the Schedule, employed a staff of clerks, and there was an unsatisfactory Report as to the clerks employed. They were recommended without reference to their education or intellectual and moral qualifications, and one of the gentlemen engaged in the census informed me that he had afterwards met two or three of the clerks, who turned out to be not unknown to the Criminal Law! We have made a recommendation for bringing into operation the principle of competitive examination in respect of these clerks. It is probably not necessary to have a complete revision in respect of the Lower Division clerks; but I think we shall have an adequate supply of fairly well-trained clerks to do this work, and in this respect we may get better census machinery. If we are going to make a census, that which statisticians desire; if we are going to gratify that passion for statistics with which I remember the Chancellor of the Exchequer once confessed he was animated; if the census is to be made a picture of the nation in its distribution, its pursuits, and its intellectual advancement, there must be at the top a permanent organisation continually looking after the work, and parfecting it, and making it their business in life. Unless we do this, none of the results we desire to obtain are likely to be arrived at.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): In reply to my right hon. Friend, I beg to assure him that if we have not introduced into this Bill any arrangement for holding a quinquennial census, it must by no means be considered that we pronounce against such a scheme as that which has been described by the right

  409
  hon. Gentleman. I may go further than that, and say that we are prepared to regard it with a friendly eye, and that it is highly probable we may submit to Parliament proposals in that direction. We think it would be difficult and not advisable to introduce into this Bill, within the comparatively short time at our disposal, the general arrangements and larger plans which would follow on the adoption of a quinquennial census; but we will not leave out of sight the valuable recommendations of the Committee over which the right hon. Gentleman presided, and we trust that if we do not meet him entirely, we shall be able to go a long way to satisfy his wishes and those of statisticians and other inquirers into the social condition of the people. The present Bill merely repeats what has been done before. We shall approach the further plan with the advantage of the inquiries conducted by my right hon. Friend, and the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) asks me to assure the right hon. Gentleman that he will not fail to take into consideration all the points which have been urged both in the Report and in the right hon. Gentleman's observations. No doubt there are defects in our industrial statistics, and it is a subject requiring our special attention. Still, it should be remembered that the Board of Trade are taking very great pains in this direction, and the present Government are not blind to the advantages of collecting industrial statistics. I think it would be of the highest importance that the Registrars' Department should be strengthened by the addition to it of persons whose almost exclusive interests should lie in a statistical direction. If a permanent Census Bureau were established by Act of Parliament, it would be necessary to assist the Registrar General by selecting some gentleman who would be distinctly interested in the science of statistics alone, and who would make it his main duty to further in every way the extension of our statistical knowledge. With regard to the enumerators, I read with surprise the revelations with regard to them on the last occasion. The recommendations of my right hon. Friend will receive every attention, and I think I may say that no such reproach shall be brought against the Census of 1891 as appears to have been justly
  410
  brought in some particulars against the Census of 1881. (8.8.)
  (8.40.) Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. A. ACLAND: Seeing the President of the Local Government Board in his place, I desire to say that those of us who waited upon him as a deputation have to acknowledge our obligations to him for meeting us on three important points, namely, that information should be given as to employer and employed, as to persons living on their own means, and as to the number of rooms in which people live. As to a quinquennial census, I do not think there is anything to add to what the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Courtney) has said. That right hon. Gentleman is a great statistician and authority on questions of political economy, and his weighty words, no doubt, have some effect on the Government. It is a matter of regret that hon. Members do not feel sure about a quinquennial census, and, still more, that they do not feel sure about some permanency in the Census Department. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, used valuable and important words, in which he indicated his feeling that some permanent element is really required in the Census Office. It is well to bear in mind that the recommendation as to a quinquennial census and a permanent Department was signed by the Chairman of Committees, who has been Secretary to the Treasury; the Registrar General; Sir Hugh Owen, the permanent head of the Local Government Board; Mr. Charles Booth, who, by what he has done in relation to the East End of London, has shown himself an admirable statistician; and by two Members of the House of Commons, one from each side. I think we may fairly hope that we shall get a quinquennial census when the time comes, and that in any case we shall get a really permanent element in the Census Department. I think, too, that what the President of the Local Government Board and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have said as to the enumerators, and as to the clerks, shows that in 10 years' time we have got very much more interest taken in the question. The Government are

  411
  going to do their best to make the local enumerators better in character if they can; they are going to make the local registrars feel that the census-taking is not a matter of local jobbery for their friends, but an occasion for them to do the best they can to get efficient men as enumerators. The Treasury, too, are bent on securing the services of a creditable body of men to carry out the work which will be inaugurated next year. These things give us some hope that the Government is looking at the matter in a serious spirit, and that they are anxious in every way to secure that the Census of 1891 shall in many ways be in advance of the census of 10 years ago. I have one practical suggestion to make. It was certainly urged in the evidence before the Committee that many of the working men who fill up the Return do not really care much about the matter. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman or his Department, or the Census Department, should address a polite letter to the three great organised bodies of working men urging them to take the matter up as one of interest from their own point of view. I believe such an appeal would be of great value. A letter might be written to the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Unions, to the Central Body of the Co-operative Societies, and to the leading Friendly Societies. I feel convinced that those bodies will urge all their more intelligent members to look at the census not as a mere mechanical matter, but as a matter which, if intelligently dealt with, will increase the amount of accurate information.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I think the census should furnish the people with an accurate Return of the foreign population in the United Kingdom. According to the Census of 1881 the number of foreigners in the United Kingdom was 136,000, and in England and Wales 118,000. Taking the total population of England and Wales, this shows a percentage of foreigners of 42. The accuracy of the Return has been much questioned. I notice that by Section 5 of the Bill the census is to show the birthplace of every living person abiding in a house on the night of the census day; but if that provision is not amended, the children of foreign
  412
  parents, born in the United Kingdom, will be returned, not as foreigners, but-as English, or Scotch, or Irish, as the-case may be. It is very important that the Government should see their way to obtain correct information concerning the number of foreigners in the country, not only of persons born abroad, but of the children of foreign parents born in this country, together with information as to the occupation of such foreigners.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: When the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the favourable views of the Government in industrial statistics, I could not help thinking of the difficulty already experienced in that branch of the industrial statistics to which I have specially directed my attention. In 1886 the House viewed favourably a proposal which I then made to it, and a Department of Labour Statistics was established in connection with the Board of Trade. We know that in America the labour statistics are far more complete than here. I am afraid the Treasury has greatly crippled the Industrial Statistical Department of the-Board of Trade, and I would suggest that in connection with any permanent-collection of statistics the Government might well consider that there is a means-now at their disposal of obtaining reliable information. I hardly take the view entertained by my hon. Friend (Mr. A. Acland) as to the facility with which statistics may be got from the workmen themselves. The experience up to the present has been rather in the other, direction. It is perfectly true that if Mr. Burnett, or whoever is the person responsible, had more clerical assistance more might be done. As far back as. 1887 we were promised the presentation of three different parts of statistics relating to wage. We have only received two at present. The delay in presenting these and other Labour Statistical Returns renders them almost worthless-. These matters are of far more-importance than some may think. Labour questions are forced on the House, and it is only in consequence of possessing accurate knowledge that replies can be made to those who raise cases of hardship in the House. I am one of those who think that the general condition of the working classes is far better

  413
  than it was. I think it is an improving condition, and that even the cases of poverty and misery in large centres of population are in proportion to population more rare than they were. But unless one is able to show by statistics that this is so, he is placed at a great disadvantage. It would be a vast improvement if the Census Department were made permanent, and I think even thousands of pounds would be economically spent in making the Department permanent. In connection with the textile industries, we have accurate information as to the hours of working and the wages paid to something like 893,000 workers. There is no reason that what has been done in the textile industries should not be done in other industrial departments of the country. It would, I think, prevent some of the difficulties that arise when contrast is made between the industries of this country and of other countries. I do not think that we can quite hope that the great Trade Societies can be relied upon to do as much as we would wish. Only something like one-third of the Societies—I admit they include some of the very largest Societies—have made Returns of statistics to the Department now existing, and there are no means at present of urging the Societies on. I trust the Government will give us the assurance that they will take such steps that we shall not be in the dark when a question affecting industry is under discussion, but be able to refer to the precise figures of each industry.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I am anxious to point out that the Bill does not provide that particulars shall be given as to whether the persons in Wales speak Welsh only, or Welsh and English. The Scotch Bill contains the provision that particulars shall be given as to whether the people speak Gaelic only, or Gaelic and English. I believe it is conceded by everybody that the Welsh people take a greater interest in their language than the English do, and certainly more than the Scotch or Irish do. This Session a Report of a Royal Commission has been presented to the House in the Welsh language, while the Scotch have never had a Report presented in Gaelic, or the Irish in Irish. That in itself shows that the Welsh people do take very great interest in
  414
  their language, and that the House is prepared to admit the fact. I believe there is not a single periodical published in the Irish language, nor a single periodical published in Gaelic, although Gaelic paragraphs are sometimes published in English newspapers; but in Wales we have nearly 40 periodicals and newspapers published in the Welsh language. Even the burden of the Welsh national song is the expression of a wish that "the old language may endure;" and it is, in fact, becoming more spoken. The right hon. Gentleman is disposed, I know, to give favourable consideration to our suggestion, and I hope he will say that he will give effect to it when the Bill is in Committee. I do not think there will be any objection from any quarter of the House. Whatever may be the differences in creed or politics, Welsh opinion is certainly united upon this, and I do not think the increase of cost will be very much to provide these additional particulars in the Return. I would venture also to make one more appeal, though if I cannot have both granted, I would more particularly urge the first. But, I would ask, would it not be possible to issue the Census Papers in the Welsh language? Notices for increase of taxation are thus made known to the Welsh people, and I think concession might be carried as far as I have indicated.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman as to the desirability of not encumbering the Census Returns with too many details, but still there are directions in which they might be improved, especially in regard to industrial statistics, and possibly in the direction to which the hon. Member has just referred. It is essential that, the Returns should be efficient and yet simple, so that they may be "understanded of the people." I heard with considerable satisfaction the sympathetic words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to a quinquennial census, and I hope that sympathy may yet find a practical form of expression before the Bill passes through the House, in the acceptance, of an Amendment providing for a quinquennial census. I urge this on the ground of public health. Health statistics based on population have done much to urge

  415
  Sanitary Authorities to the due discharge of their duties, but based, as these statistics have to be, on Decennial Returns, they are apt to be misleading; and I would remind the House of the very strong recommendation of the Majority Report of the Committee in favour of Quinquennial Returns. Sir Reginald Welby, I think, was the only member who did not advise it. I am surprised to find such a large estimate made of the cost of this simpler Census; but even if the cost should be as much as some witnesses have stated, I think the money will be well spent, for it will give increased accuracy to the weekly statistics of the birth- and death-rates. In growing towns the sanitary conditions are often the worst, and unhealthy conditions are not sufficiently recognised; but with a quinquennial numbering of the population vital facts would be brought out in a way that must exercise far more influence on Local Authorities than now obtains. Then, also, in rural districts, where often there is a decline in population, although you have the death-rate and birth-rate calculated you do not get the actual and accurate state of affairs, because the result is based on the previous 10 years' fluctuation of population. There is, consequently, not the strong incentive to activity upon Local Authorities, because the statistics are somewhat conjectural. We have just been occupied with a Bill to improve the housing of the people, a Bill which has been made a very useful measure by the work of the Committee upstairs and the conciliatory attitude of the President of the Local Government Board; but one of the strongest arguments to enforce the action of Local Authorities under that Bill would be to provide frequent and accurate vital health statistics, such as a quinquennial census would supply. The expense entailed, even though it be considerable, would come back to us, and that not after many days, in the improved sanitary conditions in which our population would live. It would entail a permanent staff and a Census Department, but this would be a public advantage. There would be an accumulation of experience from one census to another in the same hands and under the same officials, who would get a greater amount of skill in taking the census and presenting the results. I hope, before the
  416
  Bill passes, we shall have a definite statement from the Government that they will accept an Amendment for a quinquennial census.
  MR. TOMLINSON: There is a question as to the date for taking the census, which, though it has-not been raised in this Debate has been alluded to outside, and this, I presume, is an open one, as the date is left in italics in the Bill. Sunday is selected as the day when people are more likely to be in their homes, and is probably the most suitable day in the week. But the particular Sunday is very near Easter.
  MR. RITCHIE: The Sunday after.
  MR. TOMLINSON: That is a day on which there will be many persons who take their holidays at that season of the year who will not have returned to their homes, and I suggest that it might be desirable to make the date a week later. I regret that it has not been found possible to include the religious professions of people in England and Scotland amongst the subjects of inquiry, and I do not see good ground for excluding this information. Whatever might be-the result, I am sure there would be no-objection on the part of the Church of England to a religious census.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I am glad to find that the Government have not altogether decided against the principle of a quinquennial census, and I venture to-suggest that now is the proper time to arrive at a decision; for if it should be-decided upon, it would be introduced into the present Bill, and there would not be a necessity to introduce a Census Bill every five years. This would influence the appointments to be made for carrying out the work; it would be a permanent staff, and somewhat different to the staff appointed for the decennial census. As ex-chairman of the Statistical Society, I can emphatically say that all persons interested in the study of statistics have the strongest feeling in favour of a quinquennial census. For purposes of comparison 10 years is too long an interval; and in almost every country and in our colonies, the five years' census is adopted. My hon. Friend (Sir W. Foster) has alluded to the great importance of the subject of vital statistics, and I may mention that the Census of 1881 brought

  417
  out the fact, as compared with the previous Census of 1871, that the average duration of life had increased in men by two and a half, and in women by three and a half years, the increase being mainly between the ages of 10 and 50; above 50, the duration having rather declined. What may be the cause of this very interesting fact is still matter of dispute; but it would be extremely interesting to know whether the causes operate through five years, or whether they have stopped. With regard to a religious census, I think the Government have done wisely in not entering upon that thorny subject. I am sure, if they had entered upon it, we should have found the Session prolonged a month. There is a strong feeling that the religious census taken in England does not give a fair indication of the relative position of religious sects. It is not necessary to go into the subject now, but undoubtedly there are grounds for believing that a large number of people are unwilling to declare themselves Nonconformists so long as the Established Church exists. When the Established Church ceases to exist, probably there will be no greater difficulty in taking a religious census here than in Ireland or in our colonies. I recollect hearing of a census in one of our colonies in which many persons described their religious profession as "£s. d." It is a somewhat novel form to give to religious opinion, but I am not sure that there are not many worshippers of Mammon among us who would not unappropriately come under the definition with a truthful Return, but who now classify themselves under the Established Church. I hope that whatever changes may be made in the new census, the same classification will be followed as in former years, else it will be difficult to make comparisons. Whatever additions may be made, and there is much information desirable, I hope the same main classification will be followed. Before the Bill passes through Committee I trust that the Government will have decided as to whether a quinquennial census shall be adopted in the future. If I may gather from the opinions expressed by Members the view of the country, I think that change would be acceptable.
  MR. D. THOMAS: I would endorse what has been urged by my hon. Friend (Mr. S.T. Evans) with emphasis. I do not think the people of England realise the extent to which Welsh is spoken in the Principality. It is the language of pulpit, press, and people. When I go underground among the pitmen in the collieries I have to speak in Welsh, and as you walk through the streets of the towns you hear the people converse in Welsh. Young children of English parents coming to Wales soon learn the language, and seem to prefer to use it. One of the few young Irishmen who are employed underground, whom I met with the other day, I found using Welsh in preference to English. It is preposterous to have in Scotland a Return of the Gaelic-speaking population—they are but a small proportion of the people—while in Wales Welsh is the language of at least two-thirds of the population. Official recognition has been given to the Welsh language, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, by the Report of the Sunday Closing Commission being published in Welsh, and I may also mention the Local Government Act. The sale of that Act in Welsh must not be taken as any indication of the number of people who read the language, because it was published late, and a very good translation had already been circulated by private individuals.
  SIR E. J. REED: I support the appeal for the inclusion of Welsh-speaking statistics in the Returns, and I do so from a somewhat different point of view to my hon. Friends. They wish to bring out the extent to which the language is spoken, as I do also; but I also wish to bring out clearly the limitations of its use. Many questions are continually arising, sometimes of a political, often of a social character, and they are dealt with on the assumption by many persons, not that the Welsh language prevails in the interior of Wales, but as if Welsh were the only language used. Now, when we come to discuss such questions, for example, as Welsh Home Rule, I have a strong opinion that we shall find that a large proportion of the people have no use whatever for the Welsh language, and that Home Rule for Wales might be

  419
  materially influenced in favour of the solution I should prefer to seek by the knowledge this census would give. But I entirely endorse the appeal made by my hon. Friends, and I hope it will be acceded to. I would also support the view that the census should be taken more frequently. In the case of the town I have the privilege to represent in this House, it suffers in political position because of the decennial census. At the time of the last Redistribution Bill the Government were not justified by the latest Census Returns in giving Cardiff two Members; but now Cardiff has a population of quite 130,000, and still is represented by only one Member. There are other towns in England with 50,000 population represented by two Members. But for the fact that in the Redistribution Bill the Government had only the last decennial census to go upon, Cardiff would now, as it should, have two Members. The anomaly will become more serious as time goes on, unless something is done to correct it. It must be admitted that those towns in which industries have developed and population increased ought not to be subjected to political disability on account of delay in the official recognition of statistical facts.
  MR. WALLACE: I do not object to the request that a Return should be made of the people in Wales who speak the Welsh language; but I wish to say that when that request is grounded on the fact that a similar claim has been conceded to Scotland and the Gaelic language, hon. Members have not accurately observed the provisions of the Scotch Bill. Though I may not be strictly in order, I may be allowed to anticipate the discussion of that Bill by a few minutes. I may remind hon. Members that the Schedule requires that it should be stated whether any person is blind, or deaf and dumb, or imbecile, or lunatic, or speaks Gaelic, as if all these things were ejusdem generis. Everyone is to say in his Return whether he is employer or employed; and in the absence of instruction or definition, a Government clerk might suppose that he is an employer because he has a domestic servant. I think a great many people will experience considerable difficulty in deciding how they are to fill in these columns, because a
  420
  great mass of the people of the country find it necessary in some way or other to employ the labour of other people, although they may themselves be in employment. The consequence may be that we shall get an entirely fallacious view of the social condition of the country, and be completely misled. I contend that the Bill does not adequately provide for obtaining information as to whether people belong to the class of the employer or the employed, or as to whether they live on their means. Clauses should be inserted dealing more definitely with these points. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give attention to these points.
  MR. RITCHIE: I have no right to speak again, but I hope the House will allow me to say one or two words on the points raised in the course of the discussion. The hon. Member says there is no sufficient provision in the Bill for defining who is an employer or who is employed. I think that that difficulty cannot arise, because the words employer and employed are used with reference to occupation in any trade. A clerk who simply employsa servant would not come under the head of employer. The discussion has turned mainly upon a quinquennial census and a permanent staff. The House will gather that the Government regard both favourably, and what has been said will strengthen them in the view they hold. Clearly, the tendency of opinion is strongly in favour of a quinquennial census, and there can be no doubt that if it is undertaken at all it ought to be undertaken by a permanent staff. There is a great deal of force in what has been said as to the improvement of the census by the constant attention of a permanent staff, so as to make it a thoroughly reliable Return of the people and their occupations. It must not be supposed that the Government desire to express an adverse view by the introduction of the present Bill; but they feel there are many things that ought to be considered before they ask Parliament to deal with the larger question. Interested as I am in vital and health statistics I can readily recognise what assistance those who have charge of the public health will derive from obtaining a knowledge of the condition of the people every five years. I have shown that I have no

  421
  prejudice against adopting the Welsh language where it can be usefully employed, because I had the Local Government Act translated. I will see that instructions as to the mating of Returns are printed in Welsh; and I will consider the suggestion that there shall be a return of those speaking Welsh, to which I do not see any objection if it is the wish of Welsh Members. An hon. Member has asked for a Return of children attending school, but I think this is objectionable, as people will think it is a Return to be used against themselves. It would destroy the accuracy of the Returns if people come to think there is some ulterior motive behind them. The hon. Member for Sheffield suggests not only a Return of foreigners, but a Return as to their fathers and mothers, a request to which they might not be able to respond. The hon. Member for Preston asks why a particular Sunday is chosen. But the date fixed must be adhered to, unless we have strong grounds for thinking that the day is inappropriate. References have been made to the enumerators, but the House may be assured that the greatest care will be taken that those who are selected will be chosen without any regard to their political views, and solely with a view to their efficiency in the duties they will be called upon to perform.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

CENSUS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 387.)
Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.
CENSUS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 386.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. WEBB: The only objection I have to this Bill is the machinery by which it is proposed to work it. I should not object to the police being employed if stringent precautions are taken to ensure that the information obtained is not utilised for other than census purposes. We must all be aware that in many respects the relations
  422
  of the police with the people in Ireland are not the same as those which exist here. I agree it is quite necessary that a correct census should be taken. I was particularly struck with the remarks of the Home Secretary regarding the inconvenience of having an enumeration of school children, because I am sure that, if such an enumeration were insisted on, parents would feel that the information would be used for other purposes. We know that the police have used the information contained in the last census papers for purposes to which it was not intended originally to apply it, and I think the Government should now assure us that the census papers at the next census will not be used for police purposes. Why, indeed, should the Government object to put in the Bill a clause giving that assurance? Why, also, should they not impose a penalty upon the improper disclosure and use of such information? It is my intention to propose clauses making some such provisions. There should be a minimum penalty of £2 for falsification of the Return. I hope, also, that the opportunity will be taken to ascertain the number of Irish-speaking people in Ireland.
  MR. DILLON: I would strongly urge on the Government that the census should include a Return of the people speaking the Irish language. In every other country in the world the taking of the census is an occasion for rejoicing and self-congratulation on the advances which have been made; but the last four censuses in Ireland have told a terrible tale of how the people have wasted away. I am afraid that the forthcoming census will tell a similar story. I hope the Return will be made in such a form as to show to the House what is one of the most sad features in connection with the Irish census, namely, that the decrease has taken place in the richest districts, whereas the poorest districts, such as those in the North West, remain over-populated. With regard to the Return of Irish speaking people, I may say there is a strong-feeling in Ireland in favour of preserving such a remnant of the past as that language. But I rose chiefly to appeal to the Government on another matter. The Irish Census differs from the English Census in this particular. In Ireland, people are asked what their religion is,

  423
  but in England they are not. Why, then, in Ireland should we not in the same way ask the opinion of the people on the great political question of the day? I put it in all seriousness to the Government and to the Liberal Party that the time has now come, when, without much trouble and expense, this great controversy can be settled. At present, the expressed opinions as to the strength of the loyal minority show great discrepancies. Hon. Members opposite speak of it as 2,000,000 or 2,500,000. My own conviction is that it docs not exceed 1,100,000. Would it not be an important element for the guidance of statesmen if we had a reliable Return? No man, woman, or child, in Ireland would have any objection to answering such a question. Would not the hon. Member for South Tyrone, or any of his friends, be proud to answer the question? We know that they would. Nothing I can say would give greater satisfaction to my friends than such a Return. The result would be to set at rest for ever all controversy as to the numerical proportions on each side. Before sitting down, I invite the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. W. Johnston), and the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), to stand up and say whether they have any objection to such a proposal. If the National Party desire it, the Unionist Party ought not to be averse to it.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): I can hardly suppose that the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Mayo as to ascertaining the politics of the people of Ireland by the census is made seriously. It would certainly involve the enumerators in great difficulty. For instance, when an enumerator asks a person whether he is in favour of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, that person might ask him to explain what was that policy. [An hon. MEMBER: Home Rule.] Another hon. Member suggests that the question put should be for or against Home Rule, but a person might just as fairly ask, "What do you mean by Home Rule?" It is impossible to imagine a census being taken in such a way. I repeat, therefore, that I cannot think the hon. Member made the suggestion seriously.
  MR. DILLON: Quite seriously.
  MR. MADDEN: If the hon. Member is serious, I have given reasons why his suggestion should not be adopted. As to the suggestion of the hon. Member for West Waterford, I can assure him that no information obtained by means of the census will be improperly used. The present Bill is practically the same as previous Census Bills, and it is intended to take the census of Ireland in the same way as before.
  MR. SEXTON: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been ingenious, but I submit that he has not been convincing, and that, unless he offers some better arguments than he has just advanced, the House will be disposed to think that my hon. Friend is entitled to what he asks for. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested that there would be difficulty in replying to a question as to whether or not an Irishman is in favour of Home Rule; but there would be no difficulty in getting him to say whether he is in favour of the establishment of an Irish Parliament. At present a person is asked what religion he professes, and a similar objection to that urged by the right hon. Gentleman against the political question might be made against this, for it might be said that a person, when asked whether he is a Protestant, would require to know the distinction between the Protestant and other Churches, or, when asked whether he was a member of the Episcopal Church, would require the enumerator to expound the Thirty-nine Articles. But no such difficulties do arise, and they will not arise if the suggestion of my hon. Friend is carried out. The suggestion that the number of people now speaking the Irish language should be ascertained through the census is an important one, and I hope the Government will give it consideration. As to the undue use of information obtained by the census, it is not difficult to imagine cases in which such information might be used to annoy or to prosecute. I would suggest that the Government should make provision against this in the Bill, otherwise I should be disposed to move an Instruction after the Second Reading, or a clause in Committee, imposing a penalty on persons who improperly disclose information obtained through the census. It is

  425
  the duty of Parliament to fix not only the maximum but the minimum penalty.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: This Bill differs in many respects from the English and Scotch Census Bills. In England the enumerators are the overseers and relieving officers, and in Scotland the Inspectors and Assistant Inspectors of the poor, but in Ireland the Dublin Police and the Royal Irish Constabulary do the duty. By the English and Scotch Bills a table of allowances is to be laid before Parliament before the 1st of March of next year, but no such table is to be presented in respect to the allowances to the Irish police. In the case of England and Scotland an abstract of Returns has to be laid before Parliament within five months after the taking of the census, but in the case of Ireland 12 months are allowed. I cannot see why five months should not suffice. Another difference is that, while in England and Scotland the census papers are to be left by the enumerators at the houses of the people, who are to fill them up themselves, in Ireland the police are to go round, question the people, and report the answers. I can understand this being done when Ireland was an illiterate country, and there was a large number of people who could neither read nor write; but now yon will scarcely find a family where the young people, at all events, cannot read and write, and are consequently able to fill up the census papers. I say it is a positive insult to the Irish people to have policemen going round and asking who slept in their houses on a certain night, instead of giving the papers to the occupants themselves to fill up. I am sure that the Unionist Government ought to try to see that we are treated justly. We have been always hearing of equal laws between great Britain and Ireland, but this is not equal law. To get a number of policemen to ask questions is a very different thing from employing them to leave forms to be filled up by the people themselves. That is a difference which ought to be got rid of. The Bill has been most shamefully drafted. A number of particulars required for England and Scotland do not stand in the Bill at all for Ireland. In England and Scotland you are to ascertain the
  426
  marriages of the people and the relations of the families. There is no such thing in the Irish Census Bill. In England and Scotland you are to ascertain who is labouring under physical or mental infirmity in a household, who is blind, deaf, or dumb, imbecile or insane: there is no such provision with regard to Ireland. Again it is provided for England and Scotland that persons who are travelling shall on that night have their existence recorded. It is not so with regard to Ireland. The Bill, as it stands, is so imperfect that it will not give the facts in Ireland which you get in the case of Great Britain. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that it is amended, so that we may have an uniform census for the United Kingdom. Now, as to the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast, that it would be easy to put on the Census Paper the question, "Are you in favour of the establishment of an Irish Parliament," I think it is perfectly valid as far as it goes. You may not like it, but it could be easily done—nothing easier in the world, and you would then have the question of Irish opinion on Home Rule settled. It would not be altogether in the nature of pure statistics, but on the point of whether or not it would be easy to obtain the information the argument is entirely in favour of my hon. Friend.
  DR. TANNER: I rise for the purpose of urging the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make some reply, though I can quite under stand there are difficulties in the way. The Irish Constabulary are a wholly untrustworthy body as regards the information they forward, yet they are to be called upon to ask questions. We really want some intelligible reply to questions from this side of the House. The question has been raised as to whether the people would have to answer whether they are in favour of the Home Rule of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian. That is utterly absurd, and as the hon. Member for West Belfast put it, you might as well ask a man whether he was a Wesleyan or Independent, or of any section of the Protestant religion.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I think most of the questions which have been raised

  427
  are more questions for Committee, where they can be fairly raised. The hon. Member has complained that this Bill is not drafted on the same lines as the Scotch and English Bills. As a matter of fact, it has been drafted precisely on the lines of the Bill of 1880. There is scarcely any difference between the two drafts, and we thought it best to follow the precedent of 1880. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Belfast in respect to my right hon. Friend the Attorney General, I wish to point out that if once you embark on the course of ascertaining the political views of different portions of the community, it would be difficult to know where we are to stop. Certainly Gentlemen for Wales would insist on having some statements with regard to Welsh Home Rule, and Scotch Gentlemen would want statistics with regard to Scotch Home Rule. I think we do well to remain on the old lines, and to confine the census principally to the non-contentious subjects introduced in the Bill.
  MR. P. J. POWER: There is one part of my speech to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made no reply, and which is a matter of importance to us, namely, that in reference to which my hon. Friend has an Instruction on the Paper. On going into Committee, my hon and learned Friend intends to move the same words in Committee, and I would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there should be some reply to the remarks of my hon. Friend.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Sir, a phrase peculiarly offensive to many people in Ireland is "Roman Catholics." That question is to be asked—"Are you a Roman Catholic." Though a Catholic, I am no more ft Roman Catholic than the Pope is an Irishman. I trust that in the forms that are to be used the word "Roman" will be omitted, and that the word "Catholic" may be used. To use the expression "Roman Catholic" is to do violence and offer offence to the minds of a great many of those of whom you are asking the information.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: Sir, I think the discussion that has taken place shows that it will be wise on the part of the Government to confine themselves to matters of fact instead of entering upon the region of opinion. I do not believe that if the hon. Members for West Belfast and East Mayo were to receive, through means of the census, indisputable evidence that the majority of the Irish people were in favour of Home Rule, it would have the slightest effect in altering the convictions of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I object to the plébiscite in any form whatever.
  COLONEL NOLAN: As to what has fallen from the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), I wish to say that the Irish have always been willing to accept the proportion in Irish representation of 85 Home Rulers to 16 on the other side, exclusive of the two University Members—who are, no doubt, extremely valuable Members, but they do not represent the Irish people. We have always been ready to admit that proportion, but it has been universally denied by the Unionist Members and other hon. Gentlemen opposite. Therefore, we are anxious to have this plébiscite of the religious opinions of the Irish people. We believe that if such a plébiscite is taken it will show a greater proportion on our side than 85 to 16; and if the Government allow such a plébiscite to be made they will receive the support of all the Irish Members. Of course, if it is refused, the Irish Members cannot help it. As to the option being given to the Irish people to return themselves as "Roman Catholics," or "Catholics," I think they should have their choice. Some fancy one name and some fancy the other, and I think it should be left open to the people to describe themselves in any way they choose in this respect. I am of opinion that the two should be added together in the Census Returns, and that there should be no distinction made, because there really is no distinction.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.
  MR. SEXTON: As a question of order, I wish to ask, in reference to the proposal I made a short time since with regard to a penalty for disclosing information obtained in the carrying out of this census, whether I can move an Instruction to the Committee now, or shall I have to bring the matter on in Committee?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of such a proposal.

SAVINGS BANKS BILL.—(No. 240.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I see two Amendments on the Paper to this Order suggesting that it would be more convenient that the names should be filled in in the first Schedule before the Second Reading is taken. I would suggest to hon. Members who are of that opinion that it is best that we should first see how the Bill turns out before hon. Members and others are invited to form part of the proposed Committee. In discussion with some hon. Members whom I should like to enlist on behalf of the Committee which is to be appointed, the opinion was expressed that unless the duties were sufficiently defined there would be serious responsibility resting upon any one who accepted appointment on the Committee. My view was that in the first instance a Committee should be appointed who should frame a scheme, and that that scheme, when framed, should be worked by another Committee. As I find that the Gentlemen I have asked to be parties to the framing of the scheme shrink from the liabilities attaching to the working of it, I should be prepared to accept Amendments in Committee limiting the functions of the first Committee to framing the scheme and regulations under which the working Committee will be appointed. From this point of view the first Committee, I think, should be something in the nature of an Executive Commission. The Bill is the outcome of a Select Committee, which has conducted a very careful inquiry into the subject, and the thanks of the House are due to that Committee for the manner in which they have carried out the details. I have received deputations from Savings
  430
  Banks, and representations have been made to me from other quarters, which have resulted in my consenting to make alterations in the Bill, and the course I would propose is that the Bill, if the House will consent to read it a second time, should be committed pro formâ, and then, when the prominent Amendments are proposed, we can see the Bill as a whole, and the House will be in a better position to judge of it. I would mention some of the Amendments we propose. In Clause 1, to meet an objection which has been: made that the section was too strong in its original form, we propose to insert words to the effect that the Government are only responsible or liable for funds invested by Trustees, when under the National Debt Commissioners. We should have it made clear that these Trustee Savings Banks are not Government institutions, and that they have only Government security in so far as they invest in Government securities. It is most desirable that the public—and the ignorant public—who invest in these Trustee Savings Banks, should be as correctly informed as possible of the precise position of these banks with regard to the Government guarantee. Then, in Clause 2, we propose to modify the duties of the first Committee. Besides laying down regulations, we propose that they should fix the mode of appointing the permanent Committee. It would be difficult now to enter upon the controversial subject of how the banks should be represented in future on a Committee of this kind, and I would ask the House to delegate this important function to a certain number of persons to be named in the Schedule, but it will be obvious that I am unable to secure the assent of gentlemen to serve before they know how the Bill will turn out. It is a reasonable view to take to-assume that hon. Gentlemen or gentlemen who are not in this House will not like to accept the' position until they know the precise liability they will incur by accepting such a position. My view is that there should be three gentlemen connected with the Trustee Savings Banks on the first Committee, three other gentlemen, Members of this House, or others, to represent the views of the general public, and one gentleman to represent the de-

  431
  positor's and investor's position. That would form a Committee of seven to frame a scheme to be submitted to Parliament. I will not enlarge on the basis on which this Committee should be formed, because that will work out more or less identical with the suggestion of the Committee, and the Report of the Committee will show the general view that has been taken as to these duties. I trust that the House will do its best to enable us to pass this Bill, because, however well most of the Trustee Savings Banks have been managed, I think recent events have shown that there is a balance of these banks which require inspection, and I think that the public who invest in them should have the satisfaction of knowing that this inspection exists, and that a more thorough audit exists than has hitherto been possible. Then, as regards the question whether Trustees should retain their office if they do not attend the meetings for a year, I think the House 'will be of opinion that Trustees who do not attend to the business of the bank should cease to be Trustees. It is most desirable that conspicuous names should not be retained upon the Reports, unless the persons take some part in the management, and by that action give to the public that guarantee which the public believe them to give. Therefore, I am prepared to move a clause which will carry this into effect, and provide that a Trustee shall vacate his office unless he has attended once in 12 months. I am informed that sometimes there are very few meetings of Trustees, but there are Committees of Management, and I will introduce words which will provide that if a Trustee is absent from the meetings of the Trustees and of the Committee of Management during a period of 12 months, then he shall vacate his office, but that if he attends the meetings of the Committee of Management that shall be taken as attending full general meetings—because, no doubt, the meetings of the Committee may be more important than the meetings of the body of Trustees. There is one clause as to which I wish to say a word—the clause which gives power to make special investments. There is great liability to abuse in the matters of these investments—though the system has its conveniences—for when you have these two Departments,
  432
  you have a business, one portion of which is liable to audit and another portion not so liable. I have no wish to disturb the business of the existing banks, and I shall, therefore, propose a clause which will limit in the future the power of these special investments which lie outside the business of the Trustee Savings Banks. Clause 11 refers to the limit of the amount which may be deposited by any single depositor. Hitherto the law has been that £150 has been the limit, but that may be increased by accumulated interest to any sum not exceeding £200. It has been found difficult in practice to distinguish between deposits and accumulated interest, and for that reason it is proposed in the Bill to fix an absolute limit of £200. Some persons, who do not appear to understand the object of the alterations, have taken alarm at the proposed increase of the limit. I do not attach any particular importance to that clause, and rather than expose the Bill to serious opposition, shall be prepared not to press it. Those are the principal Amendments the Government are prepared to introduce into the Bill, and I shall be extremely glad if, in the course of the present Session, we can establish a better system for the control of these banks. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Bill be now read a second time."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. HOWELL: I am sorry to have to intervene at this moment. I should have been glad if we could have gone into Committee on the Bill and have passed it very rapidly, but I must say I am not satisfied with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the constitution of the Committee. It seems to me that such a Committee as the right hon. Gentleman proposes would be more or less a political Committee to deal with a more or less administrative business—a business largely under the control of the State. I think the House will admit that I was justified in the course I took on this subject in February 1887, when I first brought it under the notice of the House, and pointed out how dangerous it was to leave it in the position

  433
  in which it then was. The Government, I admit, have behaved well in the matter, having enabled us to deal with such fraudulent banks as those of Cardiff and Macclesfield. But the very severity of the Act that was passed has prevented its being put into operation in a great number of instances where it ought to have been put into operation. The Government consented to the appointment of a Committee, which investigated the condition of things, but I am obliged to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whilst he has done some things for which I never asked, has omitted to do some others which I believe to be essentially necessary. With regard to the question of investments under the 16th clause, I was never very strong on the matter. I regard the system as an outlet for the capital of some of the banks, and one which should not be lightly interfered with by the Government. One fact remains with regard to it, and that is that the banks which have taken advantage of the 16th clause are among the best and wealthiest in all parts of the country, and why they should have been singled out for attack I cannot understand. With regard to the names, perhaps, the modifications suggested by the right hon. Gentleman will meet the circumstances of the case. I never desired that anything should be done with regard to the savings banks to bring them into disrepute, or lead to their being closed. What I wanted was that the law as it stood should be carried out, believing that if that were done all these fraudulent transactions would be prevented. The right hon. Gentleman proposes that Trustees should cease to act on their neglecting their duty for 12 months. Once a year is not often to attend to such duties as that of Trustee. I am not quite sure that is quite sufficient for the purpose, and I am exceedingly sorry that with all the facts the right hon. Gentleman has had laid before him by the National Debt Commissioners and from other sources, so little has been done to deal with many of these banks, which are in a rotten condition. I submit that every one of these banks, which has to close its doors without payment in full to the depositors, is a blow struck at thrift. It is known that the bank that came to grief recently at
  434
  Chelsea has not yet paid its depositors in full. As far as I can ascertain, many of the small depositors have received the full amount, but the depositors of above £5 have obtained only 15s. or 16s. It has been urged that 15s. or 17s. 6d. in the £1 is a very fair dividend. It might be a very fair commercial dividend in the case of bankruptcy, but it is not a fair dividend in this case. The poor people made their deposits in the Cardiff Bank on the supposition that they were doing so on the security of the Government, and I hold that we are bound to see these poor depositors paid in full. I know that in this matter the Government deserved the thanks of the House and the country for the way in which they pursued the case in Court. Three years, however, have passed away since I brought the subject before the House of Commons, and the Cardiff depositors are not paid to-day. The Trustees have been fighting the case until, so far as I can ascertain, the actual cost of the litigation has amounted to as much as would have paid the whole of the depositors in full. Now, I say that this Bill, if it is to meet the requirements of the case, ought to so amend the law as to make the Trustees and managers of these banks attend to their duties and prevent the depositors being defrauded. Let me refer to the Macclesfield case for a moment. In that case the man who should have been held primarily responsible for the safe custody of the moneys committed to his care, namely, the actuary of the bank, has escaped all kind of condemnation, and remains to-day a J.P., whilst the poor clerk who was under him is suffering six years' imprisonment for embezzlements in connection with the bank. The doings in connection with that bank were of so gross a nature that the squandering of the money must have been known to the Trustees and managers of the bank, and could not but have been known to the actuary. It was a matter of common notoriety in Macclesfield that the clerk was squandering money in an hotel or public house near the bank itself to such an extent that it was impossible for him to meet out of his salary the expenses he incurred. If this was notorious to people generally in Macclesfield, surely it ought to have been known to the Trustees and managers of the bank, and, above all, to the actuary, who was respon-

  435
  sible to the Trustees and managers, and who ought to have been held responsible at law instead of the clerk. I am afraid we have not yet heard the whole story with regard to the Macclesfield Bank; and unless I am mistaken, a memorial will be addressed to this House, or to the Home Secretary, which will make further disclosures, and may show that the things going on in connection with this Macclesfield Bank were actually known to others beyond the parson who is now suffering imprisonment. I have referred to this case because it is very important, and I want to know how far the Chancellor of the Exchequer has attempted to meet it and similar cases in the Bill now before the House. The attendance of Trustees is a very important matter. If they only attend once in the year, a great deal may be done during the 11 months in which the Trustee does not put his foot in the bank. I want to know what is to be done to save the money of the depositors? With regard to Committees, I do not want to see semi-political Committees constituted. Already the banks in various parts of the country have far too much of a political complexion. I want them to be national in the best sense of the term, and to be national they ought to be safe. I have no great objection to the constitution of a Committee in the first instance to devise a scheme; but the permanent Committee appointed to carry out the scheme that is to be framed and to manage the audit ought to be under the management of the National Debt Commissioners, to whom the money will be sent, and who will have the documents necessary for the detection of any wrongdoing. Recently I was able from the very adequate Returns given annually to the House to indicate that a certain number of banks were going wrong. For instance, I mentioned the case of Bishop's Stortford before it was discovered that the bank had gone wrong. In that case nearly the whole capital of the bank had been silently drawn out by the actuary in the course of a very few months, and nobody seemed to have discovered it, although it was clear as noon-day in the Returns. I bring no charge of wrong-doing against the Trustees and managers of these banks, and I believe that they have given their names with the intention of being useful and doing
  436
  good work. But, being Trustees, they ought to discharge all the duties appertaining to the Trust. Were that done there would be very little ground for complaint. Some have supposed that I want to make a general attack on the Trustee Bunks. Nothing of the kind. I think there is plenty of room for them as well as for the Post Office Savings Banks. There is not the same need for them to-day as there was 15, or 20, or 30 years ago; but as some prefer the Trustee Banks, I say let them have them by all means. We, however, have a right to see that they are made perfectly safe for the depositors. That is especially so when we remember that year after year sums of money have been appropriated in this House for making up deficiencies in the Trustee Banks. [Mr. STOREY: No.] My hon. Friend does not seem to be aware that in one year it cost £25,000 to make good the deficiencies. The nation has had to find the money, and, that being so, it ought certainly to see that there is some security on the part of the Trustees and managers that the actuaries and servants in their employ will carry out the Act of Parliament. Some of these banks are now tottering. If the Act of 1863 were adequately conformed to, if the checks which it provides were applied week after week, there would be no possible chance of defalcations. In my opinion no sufficient reason has been adduced for not naming the Members who are to serve on the Committee, and I beg to move the Amendment of which I have given notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That," to the-end of the Question, in order to add the words-"in the opinion of this House, it is inconvenient to assent to the Second Reading of this Bill before the terms of the First Schedule of the Bill have been filled in."—(Mr. Howell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words; proposed to be left out stand part of the-Question."
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I rise in no spirit of hostility to the Bill to second the Amendment. I accept with gratitude the Amendments which have been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer as being an improvement of the Bill. The Select Committee which considered the question was appointed on the Motion of my hon. Friend (Mr.

  437
  Howell), and although I thought that my hon. Friend, in moving for the Committee, played the part of an alarmist, I feel bound to say that as witness after witness came before the Committee my opinion more nearly approached his, and I have now to endorse what he has said respecting the somewhat dangerous position of some of these banks at the present time. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that Parliament has very considerable responsibility in this matter. Undoubtedly there has been thrown on the taxpayers of the country some financial burden in connection with Trustee Savings Banks, and in proportion as these Banks are likely to be useful so it is bound to remedy any evils marring that usefulness. There is much greater latitude given by them with regard to the withdrawal of deposits than is given by the Government Savings Banks. There are, however, undoubtedly very erroneous ideas among the working population as to the responsibility of the State with regard to these banks. I think that the investment of large sums under the Act of 1863 is not without danger. Undoubtedly, use is made by some of these banks of the names of persons who have long ceased to be of any service, or to feel themselves responsible for the conduct of the bank. I hope the Bill will prove successful in grappling with these difficulties. Coming to its provisions, I think there should be some distinct notice, as suggested in Clause 1, that the State was only responsible to a limited extent for the sums deposited. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend as to the desirability of having the names of the Committee, and also full particulars under Schedule 1, and I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has disposed of that objection. With respect to the Committee of Inspection, the proposal is based upon the recommendations of the Select Committee. That recommendation was only carried by six votes against five, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree that that did not amount to a very strong expression of opinion on the part of the Committee. I am not prepared to take the responsibility of taking steps to throw over the
  438
  Committee under the Bill, although I am not at all sanguine as to the advantage of setting it up. The issue of the matter rests entirely on the names of the persons selected to serve upon the Committee. I am very glad to hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has determined to stand by Clause 6. The Select Committee reported unanimously—
  "It is evident that the character of the names appearing on the list of Trustees must have great influence on the depositors, and there is some reason to think that names are often retained on the list after the persons have become unable, through ill-health, removal from the locality, or other causes, to make themselves responsible for the conduct of the bank."
  As to Clause 7, no one who has looked into the matter will deny that the clause is most essential. I hope we shall see no weakening of it in Committee. I agree with the hon. Member for Bethnal Green that it is most extraordinary how the Lord Chancellor can have seen it compatible with his duty to retain in the commission of the peace Messrs. Stringer and Eaton, whose conduct was so animadverted upon in regard to the case of the Macclesfield Bank. Clause 10 deals with special investments. I am glad there is to be some alteration as to investment, When I look at Return 51, which was laid before the House this Session, and saw the character of the investments that have been made by banks in certain districts, I am obliged to say, speaking from some years' experience of banking, that those banks have carried out rather risky operations. In conclusion, I have only to say I do not object to the scheme of an independent Committee; it may fail, and I am quite sure it must fail, unless the Framing Committee are extremely careful as to how the Committee of Inspection is constituted, and as to the nature of the duties it has to perform. I believe that, if Trustee Savings Banks are prudently conducted, as a number of them are, they have a very useful and successful career before them. In districts where gentlemen of position are found ready to give up much of their time without any hope of reward, and just as a labour of love to the work of these banks, these banks succeed. It is only those banks

  439
  which fall into the hands of mere officials which fail. I therefore hope that the Amendments which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has enumerated will be adopted, so that the Bill will bring about a much-needed reform.
  MR. BARTLEY: It seems to me obvious that it is almost impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give the names until it is known what the Committee has to do. I am sure hon. Members have no idea of the responsibility of this Committee, and I cannot conceive anybody accepting the appointment as the Bill now stands. There are about 350 of these banks; they hold something like £45,000,000, and they have 1,500,000 depositors. Until the Committee is appointed, the gentlemen who are named in the Schedule will have themselves to carry on the inspection and audit of all these banks. Clause 4 provides that the Committee shall not be a paid body, but shall do its duties simply as a labour of love. It seems obvious that no one can undertake these duties until this clause is somewhat altered in the direction of the duties being made somewhat less onerous. With reference to the views of the Select Committee, it seems tome a great pity that the recommendation of that Committee upstairs was not adopted more completely. Unless the audit is done most thoroughly, the result must be disastrous. I am one of those who believe that Trustee Savings Banks have been very wonderfully conducted. When we look at the history of these institutions and find the enormous sums of money that have passed through them—something like £250,000,000 in 25 years—and we find that, with the exception of the Cardiff Bank, there has been hardly any loss at all. I think they reflect great credit on those who conduct them. But, at the same time, there is no question that machinery is wanted to secure that the accounts shall be properly audited. The Committee upstairs went into the matter very carefully; and although I candidly confess I do not like this Bill as much as I hoped I should, I trust we shall read it a second time. I think it may eventually be knocked into a shape that will do a great deal of good.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I would make an appeal to the House to allow the Second Reading of the Bill to be taken now, as there is other important business to be taken. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has undertaken to re-commit the Bill for the Amendments he-proposes to introduce, and the House will then have the measure in its more-perfect form, together with the names which my right hon. Friend has-promised. I hope the hon. Member will, for the sake of the convenience of the House generally, allow us to take the Second Reading of the Bill now, and he will have a better opportunity for his observations in Committee.
  MR. HOWELL: After the intimation given, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  MR. STOREYAnd I, Sir, beg leave to move the adjournment of the Debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Storey.)
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope the hon. Member will not insist upon that. To adjourn the Debate now may possibly endanger the Bill and prevent its passing this Session. We cannot re-commit the Bill until it has been read a second time.
  MR. STOREY: With the indulgence of the House I may be allowed to explain my action. I think the Trustee Savings Banks have been very badly treated, both by the Government and by the attacks made upon them in other quarters. It is extremely important that some persons who know these banks and their work should speak upon the matter, and the proper time for that is on the Second Reading of the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer asks the House to give a Second Reading to a Bill in which the most important clauses are to be entirely re-cast. That is the most extraordinary proposal I have ever heard.
  MR. GOSCHEN: It is just because I am anxious that the House should have the Bill in the form we propose it should assume that I wish to re-commit the Bill. I have received a deputation from nearly all the Savings Banks in the country, and they are fully satisfied with the proposed Amendments.
  MR. STOREY: But the House does not know what the Amendments are.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The House cannot know until the Bill is re-committed. But if the Bill is committed pro formâ and re-printed, an opportunity will be given for the consideration of the Amendments. I will undertake that time shall be given for the circulation of a copy of the Amendments among the banks, and then hon. Members will have an opportunity of preparing any Amendments in the interest of the banks. It is the most business-like course, and I trust the hon. Member will accept it.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I think we all recognise the importance of reading the Bill a second time, and I think my hon. Friend will find a full opportunity for discussion when he has the Bill before him in the amended form the right hon. Gentleman proposes.
  MR. CONYBEARE: The right hon. Gentleman thinks we are more innocent than we look, but a number of old birds are not to be caught with salt. We thoroughly understand the tactics. For my part, I am fully prepared to support my hon. Friend. I have been bombarded with numerous letters from constituents and others expressing the greatest disapprobation of the proposals of Her Majesty's Government, and I certainly think it is our duty to insist upon a Second Reading discussion. The Amendments may modify materially the whole scope and character of the Bill, and we ought to know what we are doing before we commit ourselves to a Second Reading.
  (11.40.) The House divided:—Ayes 86; Noes 184.—(Div. List, No. 192.)
  Original Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. STOREY: I do not know, Sir, whether I have exhausted my right of speech——
  Mr. SYDNEY GEDGErose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  MR. SPEAKER: Do I understand the hon. Member for Bethnal Green desires to withdraw his Amendment?
  MR. HOWELLassented.
  MR. SPEAKER: Is it your pleasure the Amendment be withdrawn?(Cries of "No."]
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I very much regret the opposition shown to the passing of this Bill. ["No, no."] However, it is not my desire to enter on a contest with hon. Gentlemen in the interests of those who are concerned with the safety and security of Savings Banks, and with those hon. Gentlemen the sole responsibility must rest if a measure which is designed to improve the security of those who place their hard-earned savings in those institutions cannot, in consequence, be passed during the present Session. The Bill has received support from all parts of the House, and my right hon. Friend has shown his desire to meet the wishes of those who want Amendments to be made in a reasonable way. In those circumstances I will not detain the House longer, but allow the House to proceed to the other business which has been fixed for this evening. I agree to an adjournment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I feel obliged to say two things upon this subject. In the first place, I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not infer from the Division which has just taken place [Laughter, and cries of "Order !"] either that there is any cause for the unseemly

  443
  manifestation which has just taken place, or that there is any hostile disposition to the principles of this Bill on this side of the House. [Laughter.] Notwithstanding these manifestations of the manner in which hon. Gentlemen prefer to pursue the Debate—notwithstanding this and the waste of time these interruptions cause—I venture to express my belief that this Bill has excellent objects in view, and I sincerely hope that it will pass into law this Session. But I think that the right hon. Gentleman did not see the point which has arisen, which seems to give strength to the appeal of the hon. Member, which I, for my own part, cannot resist. My hon. Friend has a right to a Second Reading discussion. Under the old practice in this House a commitment pro formâ has been of frequent occurrence, and is a most useful proceeding; but after that, when re-commitment was used, it would have been in the power of my hon. Friend to resume his Second Heading discussion. Now, by the Rule which has been passed, my hon. Friend is obliged to have his Second Reading discussion now or never, and, therefore, it has been impossible for me to resist the appeal of my hon. Friend. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be led by the occurrence of to-night to consider a matter which is of great importance in the procedure of this House, namely, whether when you have made a Rule abolishing the power of debating a Bill on the Speaker leaving the Chair, it would not be wise to make an exception to that Rule when a Bill is committed pro formâ, when it might undergo any amount of changes, and when there is no power whatever of questioning any of those changes. With regard to this Bill, I, for one, should be glad to see it advanced with all possible expedition.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till to-morrow.

SUPPLY [8TH JULY]-REPORT.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [10th July],
"That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution That a sum, not exceeding £889,490, 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
444
day of March, 1891, for the Expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary."
Question again proposed.
Debate resumed.
MR. DILLON: I do not propose to go at length into the facts in relation to the shooting at Charleville, for the purpose of discussing which this Debate has been several times adjourned; but before making a Motion which will enable the Chief Secretary to make his statement with regard to the case, I must first protest against the action of the Government with reference to this Vote. The Debate has several times been postponed on the express understanding that it would ultimately be taken at a reasonable hour; that is to say, half-past 10 or 11. But Members came down to the House, having been given to understand that the Debate would be taken not later than 11, and we waited, astonished at the action of the Government, until half-past 11, when the leader of the House rose, as we supposed, to move the adjournment of the business then under discussion. To our astonishment he persisted in the Debate, and thus we find this Vote is only reached on the stroke of midnight. In these circumstances, I consider I am justified in saying that faith has not been kept with us. Without occupying more time, and in order to allow the Chief Secretary to speak again, I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £10,000.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot do that. The House must say "aye" or "no" to the Question whether the House agrees with the Committee in the Resolution.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): I think that it will probably be convenient to the House if I made a short statement now, having regard to the fact that the Chief Secretary can only address the House once. I will shortly indicate the position with regard to this matter, with especial reference to certain statements which were made on the last occasion when it

445
was last before the House. With regard to what has fallen from the hon. Member for East Mayo, I have to say the Government had every intention of bringing this question on at an earlier hour. Events will sometimes occur, however, in the course of the discussion of an Order of the Day, which render necessary the postponement of the hour at which a subsequent Order of the Day can be taken. It was stated on the last occasion that the action of "Nolan v. Concannon" might be treated as an action no longer pending. I find, after inquiries, that no step has been taken by Nolan to bring the action to a close, and that it is still pending. Therefore, while the case is still before the Courts, any discussion of the questions in dispute in the action seems to me to be inexpedient and improper. What is the position of the case? It has been alleged that four shots were fired by the police; that a man named Nolan, sitting on a wall adjoining the station, fell down after the shots were fired, alleging that he had received injury from a bullet. It has been alleged, also, that the firing on the part of the police was not justified by any action on the part of the crowd. On the other hand, it has been alleged that there was action on the part of the crowd, the character of which I will not now discuss, which justified, in point of law, the firing of the police. What course did the plaintiff, and those who were desirous of trying the conduct of the police, take? This cannot be represented as a case which the plaintiff brought before a Court of Law for the purpose of obtaining damages for a substantial injury, because the injury done to the plaintiff was so infinitesimal that one question submitted to the jury was whether Nolan was struck by a bullet at all or whether the abrasion on his leg was not caused by a projection from the wall. It was a case brought into Court for the purpose of trying whether, on this occasion, the firing by the police was justified or not. There were two principal ways, in addition to an investigation before two Magistrates, of trying that question. The police might have been prosecuted criminally for the offence of firing at with intent to kill. That procedure would have involved no
446
question as to the nature of the wound sustained by Nolan, and it would have directly raised the question as to the justifiability of the firing by the police. Then, a civil action for the recovery of damages might have been brought; and, with the view of testing the question whether the police were justified in firing, the plaintiff, and those acting with him, elected to proceed by civil action. What occurred? The civil action was tried before Mr. Justice Murphy and a jury. The jury disagreed. There was no shorthand writer employed to take a report of the Judgment, but it appears that the nature and cause of the injury to the plaintiff and the question of the justifiability of the police were left as a jury question. The case was again tried before the Lord Chief Baron and a jury. I have the best means of information as to the charge of the Lord Chief Baron, because a shorthand writer was present. The Lord Chief Baron, without any expression of opinion, summed up the evidence on both sides, pointing out the conflict of testimony on material points as to the demeanour of the crowd, as to whether there was anything which amounted to an attempt to rescue, and as to whether shots had proceeded from the crowd. He left them the question whether the wound was caused by a bullet or not, and the question whether the firing by the police was justified or not. The jury were unable to agree upon the first of these issues, and the action has not since been discontinued and is still pending. There will, therefore, be a third trial involving the question of the justifiability of the action of the police. That question the Government are now asked to withdraw from the cognisance of the High Court of Justice in order that it may be considered by some other tribunal which it is proposed to constitute. That is a suggestion which the Government certainly cannot entertain as long as the civil action in the High Court is pending.
MR. W. O'BRIEN: It seems to me that from beginning to end of this shameful matter the Government have acted in a most shuffling and uncandid manner. The Government were told in the House three weeks ago that there was an end of this action.

447
The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary pretended to doubt the assurance that was then given, and two nights afterwards the Member for Leeds produced and read a telegram from the plaintiff's solicitor stating that no further proceedings will be taken in the matter. The Chief Secretary then appeared to accept the assurance, yet to-night the Attorney General pretends that he is not sufficiently assured on the matter, although I, who was said by the police to be the real plaintiff in the case, now assure the House that the proceedings are at an end. I assure the Government there will not be a third trial of this action, because in the trial which has already taken place the guilt of the policeman has been satisfactorily proved. There were two trials, and only on one question put before the jury, a comparatively insignificant point—whether or not the slight injury received by this man was caused by the grazing of a bullet, or by a spike on the wall—was there a disagreement. The jury, which consisted largely of the political friends of the right hon. Gentleman, were prepared to find that the police were not justified in firing, and it cannot be said of Mr. Justice Murphy, who presided over the first trial, that he was favourably disposed towards the plaintiff or his friends. Prom Mr. Justice Murphy's charge it is clear he considered that the contention of the police that there had been an attempt at rescue was a ridiculous invention. The Chief Baron in his charge also took the same view. If the conduct of the police at Charleville is to be justified and brazened out in this House, our lives in Ireland will not be worth a moment's purchase. To-night the Government fall back upon the miserable excuse that the question is still to be tried by another jury, though it has been tried out already. The question is, whether those 17 armed men were justified in firing four shots into a chance crowd, which they themselves estimated at 100 people, but which I estimate at 40 or 50. In the next compartment but one to that in which I was, there were 11 armed riflemen, and so little did the cheering outside disturb them that not one of them moved out of the carriage, although it is admitted they could have swept
448
the crowd. The whole story of attempted rescue is ridiculous and impossible. The Government offer the same explanations to the House which the policeman offered to Judges and juries, and which the Judges and juries disbelieved. I venture to say it is a shame and a scandal that public money should be employed, as it has been employed, to enable these men to go to trial, and the money of the taxpayers lavished in enabling them to evade the consequences of as gross a piece of savagery as was ever charged against any body of men. If the Government offer the least justification for their action in this case, the least the Irish Members have a right to demand is that copies of the evidence and charges shall be laid on the Table. No man can read those depositions and charges without believing that it is a shame on public justice in Ireland that these men were not drummed out of the Service, if not put upon their trial.
MR. FLYNN: The right hon. Gentleman has tried to imply that the knowledge that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork was in police custody was possessed by the crowd at Charleville Station on the day in question. He omitted to state that Charleville was 35 miles from the city, and that on that day there were no possible means of communication except by the train, as the telegraph office is only open for one hour on Sunday mornings. What occurred on that particular day? A small crowd assembled on the platform to welcome four or five delegates, and when they heard that my hon. Friend was in the train, they gave cheers "for Mr. O'Brien," while two or three ran to the carriage window in order to shake hands with him, whereupon these cowardly ruffians fired, as they confessed, with intent to kill. Now, I say that this House has a right to demand an explanation from the Government instead of the quibbling, prevaricating, and shuffling we have just heard. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has taken the trouble to read the report of the trials. I have, and I never heard anything so absurd as the suggestion that there was an attempt to rescue the hon. Member on that occasion. Imagine 30 or 40

449
boys without a weapon in their hands attempting to rescue my hon. Friend out of the custody of 20 strong men armed to the teeth. When these people went to the station, they had not the remotest idea that my hon. Friend would be in the train. I have made inquiries from 15 or 20 persons who were on the platform at the time, and I have seen affidavits which were sworn two or three days after the occurrence, and there is nothing at all to bear out the suggestion of an attempted rescue. The truth is, Inspector Concannon lost his head on that occasion; and long before the train reached Charleville, he was seen boiling over with excitement. It is admitted that be never gave the police orders to fire, and that in firing they disobeyed one of their most stringent regulations. It was sworn by the ticket collector and the head porter in charge of the station that the shots were not tired by the Inspector and the policemen with him until the train was moving from the platform on its way to the next station. This is absolutely proved beyond the possibility of doubt. The guard had given the signal, the whistle had sounded, the train was moving from the platform, when the police fired into this crowd of 30 or 40 people with, as they admit, intent to kill. The young man who brought the action was sitting on a wall engaged in the terribly reprehensible and violent conduct of shouting "Three cheers for William O'Brien," which, if it be an offence, is one committed daily throughout Ireland. It will be a scandal and reproach to this House if an explanation is not given by the Government. If the right hon. Gentleman persists in defending such conduct he is teaching a dangerous lesson to the Irish police and the Irish people, because, if in going to meetings the people are not protected from the unlawful assaults of the police, I should advise the young men to arm themselves with cudgels for self-defence; and as to the more dangerous use of firearms, the right hon. Gentleman is instilling a still more dangerous lesson into the minds of Irishmen, because, in defending the use of such weapons, he cannot expect that the people will not find some way of protecting themselves.
SIR HORACE DAVEY: I think the Government are
450
in this matter behaving very shabbily. I am not about to enter into controversial topics relating to any action pending or not pending before the Irish Courts. I am only about to refer to the charge made against the police, both last year and now. It is that they wantonly, and without sufficient provocation, fired upon the people on the platform of a railway station from a railway carriage while the train was in motion and leaving the station. On the 4th of July the Chief Secretary, speaking from information he had received, said, in answer to a question, that it appeared from the official Reports that the door of the railway carriage was surrounded by a mob of about 100 persons; that it was twice forced open, apparently with the object of rescuing Mr. O'Brien; that two shots were fired into the carriage, and that it was only then that the Sub-Inspector and his two men fired. The right hon. Gentleman afterwards said he gathered distinctly that shots were fired by the crowd. I think I am right in stating that at the trial there was no evidence of two shots having been fired, and that there was conflicting evidence as to one shot having been fired by the people. There have been two trials, and on both occasions the jury disagreed as to whether the plaintiff Nolan was injured by a bullet fired by the police or not. Now, I should like to ask the Government whether they are paying Concannon's expenses out of the public funds? Is Concannon's defence to these actions being conducted by the Government out of public money? Because, if that is so, it is idle for the right hon. Gentleman or the Attorney General for Ireland to say they believe, as if the information came to them by the way, that Concannon intends to have another trial. I ask the Government to state whether they intend to have a new trial or not, because although the defence is in the name of Concannon, it is really the defence of the Government. There is another matter the House would like to have cleared up. If the Government intend to have a new trial, at the public expense, what justification is there for it? Are they prepared to say they have better and stronger evidence to lay before a jury in a new trial? If they are not in that position I venture to say

451
they will be incurring a wanton expenditure of the public money in insisting on a new trial in Concannon's behalf. If my information is correct, the case put forward by the right hon. Gentleman was at least exaggerated, and this being so, and the second trial having proved abortive, the Government are not justified in incurring further expense by prolonging this litigation.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I regret that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have charged the Government with acting shabbily for no better reasons than those he has brought forward. He has charged the Chief Secretary—reading from Hansard—with having made an exaggerated statement in connection with this matter, and the alleged exaggeration comes simply to this—that, whereas the Chief Secretary stated that, from the information he had received, two shots were fired, it turned out afterwards that only one shot was fired. That was scarcely sufficient ground for such a charge, and the condemnation of the conduct of the police would hardly depend on whether one shot or two shots were fired, if attempts were made to bring about a rescue. The hon. and learned Gentleman has admitted that there was evidence with regard to a possible rescue, and that he has not the means of forming a judgment, yet he has referred to the two issues of the trial, and expressed an opinion with regard to them. Two issues have been raised in the trials, and they have been separately stated; and it is not in accordance with my experience of the trials of issue to suggest that because two juries have been unable to come to a conclusion, therefore the evidence was all on one side. I should have hoped that anyone having my hon. Friend's experieuce at the Bar would have refrained from expressing opinions which certainly ought not to be expressed so long as there is a prospect or probability of the case coming again to trial. The hon. Member for Leeds made a statement from a telegram to the effect that it was arranged that there was to be no new trial.
MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: The Chief Secretary accepted the
452
statement which I made that no further-action would be taken by the plaintiff.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I accepted the statement that the plaintiff did not wish to go on.
SIR R. WEBSTER: The statement was accepted at the moment, because it was impossible to ascertain the accuracy of the information given by telegram. But after that distinct statement to my right hon. Friend we find the plaintiff taking no steps to discontinue the action. What is the reply of the hon. Member for East Cork? He gets-up again in the House and says that there will be no further trial as far as-the plaintiff is concerned. Has Con-cannon no rights in this case? I deny that a person who is charged, and is-brought by civil action into Court, has-no interest in the matter; and if the right to trial by proviso exists——
MR. MOLLOY: When was the last case?
SIR R. WEBSTER: I do not know, but in England, and I dare say Ireland as well, the defendant can take an action to trial, and it would be most unfair if we were to come to a decision on this matter on the assumption that the defendant cannot have the case determined. The hon. and learned Gentleman desires to know whether or not the Government are paying the expenses of District, Inspector Concannon. If the case had-occurred in England I have very little doubt that not only would the expenses of the trial be paid by Government, but that the defence would be undertaken by them, where a policeman, acting bonâ fide in the discharge of his duty has made himself liable, and there is no reason to suppose that he has acted maliciously. I understand, however, that the practice in Ireland is, that when a constable is charged under such circumstances he instructs his private solicitor, who conducts his case. The Government do not undertake the defence, but at the end of the trial, when the matter is considered, if the constable is found not to have acted improperly his expenses are paid by the Government. And in the present case, which is an action brought, as is-now admitted, not for any great injury done to Nolan or for damages, but to try the question whether a constable has-

453
exceeded his duty, and in which two juries have disagreed, it would be very extraordinary not to pay District Inspector Concannon his expenses. My answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman is, therefore, distinct—namely, that Inspector Concannon consulted his private solicitor, that his solicitor conducted the case, and that the case, therefore, has not been carried on at the dictation or under the control of the Government; but when the case comes to an end, the matter will be considered by the Executive, and if it stand as at present, District Inspector Concannon's expenses will be paid. I deprecate any attempt on the part of the House to discuss the issues of the case if it is going to be tried again, and I contend that it will be alike unwise and unjust to expressany judgment upon it until the evidence is fully before us.
MR. SEXTON: There are two important questions demanding reply, and which have been asked in the course of this Debate. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork did not obtain a candid answer to his inquiry whether the notes would be laid upon the Table. My hon. Friend also inquired whether the costs of District Inspector Concannon would be paid, but the hon. and learned Gentleman evaded the question. The Attorney General gave a hypothetical answer, though he has often expressed his objection to hypothetical answers in this House. What we want to know is whether the public purse is to be placed in this matter at the disposal of a man who, on the night in question, incurred the moral guilt of murder; for, by evidence of the police themselves, they fired with the intent to kill, and the jury agreed that there had been unjustifiable firing by the police.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
MR. W. O'BRIEN: Distinctly.
MR. SEXTON: While the Government are sheltering themselves under the plea that the action has not ceased, do they intend to procure the continuance of the action by the funds of the State? The hon. Member for Leeds stated the other night that he had read an intimation from the solicitor of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had no intention to proceed. Does anyone imagine that District Inspector Concannon, of himself, would proceed? I
454
suspect that gentleman has had enough of the case, and that he will be glad to be let alone. But now the Government pretend that Concannon intends to proceed, and on that pretence refuse an answer. The good faith of the Government in the matter may be judged by the speech of the Attorney General for Ireland, who never filled a more pitiable rôle than he has done to-night. His speech was a contemptible evasion. One of the right hon. Gentleman's observations was that the Government had no shorthand notes of the Judge's charge. Why, they had a most excellent report. If the humblest politician in Ireland makes a speech on some remote hillside a Government reporter is there, but in the case of a man morally guilty of murder the Government have no means of furnishing a shorthand report of the charge of Her Majesty's Judge. It appears that a police reporter was present on the occasion of the second trial; yet the Government cannot produce the transcript.
MR. MADDEN: I stated distinctly that I had in my hand the transcript taken by the shorthand writer of the charge of Chief Baron Palles, and that the Government are prepared to lay it on the Table.
MR. SEXTON: The Government have so many reporters to spare all over Ireland that I should have thought they would have seen the importance of this case, and have taken the precaution of procuring a competent report of the charges of both the learned Judges. The Attorney General said that the plaintiff need not have brought his action before a jury, but might have brought the case before two official confederates of the police. I ask the House from that one-observation to judge of the good faith of the Government. What is their sheet anchor and main defence? That the action has not been discontinued. We have the most authoritative information that it has been discontinued. I protest against the Attorney General trying to mislead the House into the opinion that there was very little cause of complaint. He suggested that the man was not struck by the bullet.
MR. MADDEN: I did not suggest-that Nolan was not struck by the bullet What I did say, and it was admitted

455
by the hon. Member for Cork, was that the trifling nature of the injury led to the conclusion that the action had been brought not for damages but to try the question of the conduct of the police.
MR. SEXTON: I should like to know how the Attorney General would feel were he fired at when on the top of a wall, and he fell from the top to the bottom? I should like to know whether the Attorney General would have taken action. The plaintiff suffered severe shock and serious injury, and was for a considerable time prevented from pursuing his avocation. It is notorious that Inspector Concannon showed a lamentable lack of judgment and self-denial. Can anyone read the evidence given in the case, and the charges of the learned Judges, and have any doubt that the statements made by the Chief Secretary last year that a rescue was contemplated, and that the police had orders to fire, have been proved to be absolutely unfounded? There is no doubt in the world that the police fired without orders, and as to the charge of attempted rescue, there is no doubt whatever that nobody in the crowd knew my hon. Friend (Mr. W. O'Brien) was in the train. The armed policemen in the crowd were as numerous as the whole assembly, and they could have swept the crowd away in five minutes. It is noteworthy that no constable left one of the carriages, although they were all in a position to observe what went on on the platform, and that is a conclusive proof that the people came there with an innocent intention, and that any excitement that existed was caused by the desire to shake hands with my hon. Friend. I am curious to know whether the Chief Secretary will still insist that a shot was fired into the carriage. The evidence proves clearly that the shots fired were fired by the police alone. Who would have taken firearms to the station but the police, and for what purpose? The glass and the woodwork of the carriage have been examined, and there is no trace of a bullet in them. I declare that the Government have, in this case, been guilty of the most miserable evasion, that their conduct amounts to an official incitement to crime, addressed to the armed servants of the Crown, and, if they refuse to give us an assurance
456
that the officer will be removed from the post in which he so narrowly escaped the taking of life, it will be impossible for the Chief Secretary in the future to contend that the Government desire the detection of crime or the maintenance of order.
MR. CLANCY: It is a remarkable thing that the Chief Secretary has not risen. The inference we draw from his silence is that he is afraid to fall out with Inspector Concannon. The Attorney General has said that the jury did not agree. Does he pretend that the Judges have not pronounced that the firing on this occasion was entirely unjustifiable? The hon. and learned Gentleman says the Government have no verbatim report of the observations of Mr. Justice Murphy, though they have a report of the charge of Chief Baron Palles. Let them produce that, and we will take our stand upon it. I read the charge of Mr. Justice Murphy myself. One of the points on which he dwelt was this: He said, the chief defence, in point of fact, the substance of it, was that there was an attempt at rescue by the crowd, and he went on for a quarter of an hour in the most distinct terms to ridicule that allegation. He pointed out that the police were armed men, that they were trained to the use of arms, that men trained to the use of arms and possessing arms were bound to be men of action and prudence, and should not be subject to sudden bursts of passion, or liable to lose their heads. He pointed out that a rescue from armed police was unknown in the country, and, in fact, he ridiculed the bare idea that any rescue had been attempted. I say that if there were nothing more in the case than this consideration—that the contention of the Chief Secretary last year was based on the alleged attempt to rescue—the contention of the Government has entirely broken down. The Government have a verbatim report of the charge of Chief Baron Palles. Let them lay it on the Table of the House.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear.
MR. CLANCY: As the right hon. Gentleman intimates his intention of laying it on the Table of the House, and refuses to answer us to-night, I do not think we can pass the Vote to-night. The time has come for the adjournment of

457
the Debate. I should have thought that the Attorney General for England would have taken a long time before he spoke of the affairs of Ireland again in this House. I thought he had heard enough of Pigott and his doings in Ireland. I cannot help alluding to the right hon. Gentleman's observation that Inspector Concannon had rights, and that he might go on with the action, as if he had not been blessing his stars every day for the last two months that he had escaped by the skin of his teeth, and as if he could afford to go on with the action. Inspector Concannon got off on a miserable technicality. Two questions were left for the jury: first, whether Nolan was hurt by a bullet, or a spike in the wall? and, secondly, whether the police were justified in firing? The jury could not come to a decision on the second question until they had agreed on the first, and because they could not agree that Nolan was hit by a bullet, they were precluded from coming to a decision on the second point. The idea that Concannon is panting and thirsting for a trial, and that he would have one if his own wish were consulted, is about as audacious a pretence as was ever put forward in this House. He will never move in the matter. He could have served notice to have the case dismissed for want of a prosecution, but he has not taken that course. He dare not take it. The theory that a shot was fired into the carriage was blown to the winds in five minutes. If it was correct, one of two things must have happened. Either some one must have been hit, or the bullet would have been found in the carriage, but neither of these things occurred. Immediately after the shot was said to have been fired, the police were challenged by the Member for North-East Cork to search the carriage. They refused to do so at the time, but waited until the hon. Member had left the train, when they sent two men to search the carriage. That search did not result in the finding of a bullet. In fact, Concannon gave up the theory about the shot being fired into the carriage, and he gave the case away in evidence. The fact was that the flash of the alleged firing was nothing more than the flash of the guard's lantern, which was used to start the train. The Chief Secretary is acting
458
now as he acted in the case of Mitchelstown. When that massacre occurred, the right hon. Gentleman started a theory, and he has stuck to it ever since. Even before he received the full Reports of the police, he started a theory, and that theory he has stuck to in spite of most overwhelming evidence against it. He is doing the same thing now. He delivered a theory to the House, and to that theory he adheres, and now he refuses to give any explanation of his conduct. Under the circumstances, the only thing is to move the adjournment of the Debate, which I now do.
MR. E. HARRINGTON: I beg to second the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed)"That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Clancy.)
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the request of the hon. Member who has just sat down is somewhat unreasonable. Complaint is made that I have not spoken; but there are two reasons why I have not taken part in the discussion. One is that my two right hon. and learned Friends have told the House what course the Government intend to take in relation to laying the report of the charge of Chief Baron Palles on the Table and the payment of the expenses.
MR. T. M. HEALY: They said nothing about the expenses.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My hon. and learned Friend has given a complete answer on the two points.
MR. T. M. HEALY: What was said about expenses?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What was said was that certainly, so far as the two abortive trials were concerned, the Government would pay the expenses.
MR. T. M. HEALY: That is the first time that has been stated.
SIR HORACE DAVEY: What the Attorney General for England said was that when the proceedings were over the Government would consider the matter, and he thought if there was no further trial they would pay the expenses of the abortive trials.
SIR R. WEBSTER: I said that the Government would certainly pay the expenses of the two abortive trials if

459
matters remained as they were and no further trial was taken.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understood my hon. and learned Friend to say that, and if hon. Members did not understand it I now state it. These matters having been stated, it does not appear to me that there is anything further to add. I anticipated that the Member for Mid Lothian, at whose request the Vote has been postponed——
MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: No, no.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, I was under that erroneous impression, and I was anxious to hear the right hon. Gentleman's observations, or those of some of his Colleagues, before I myself spoke. I was anxious to hear the right hon. Gentleman or some of his Colleagues on the Front Opposition Bench show why the answers given by my hon. and learned Friends, in answer to specific inquiries, were not satisfactory. I now hope the House will not defer coming to a conclusion on this Vote. The hon. Member who has just sat down says he desires to see the charge of Chief Baron Palles. That is a reasonable request, but some delay will be necessary. The charge will have to be printed, the learned Judge will have to correct the proof sheets, and some considerable time must necessarily elapse before the charge can be sent back to the House. I hope the House will not defer coming to a decision on the Vote until we have seen the charge.
MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down stated, as is his manner, bluntly, on being questioned closely on the point, what the two learned Gentlemen before him endeavoured to conceal. Concannon has now the declaration of the Government that his costs will be paid in both trials, and then we are to take the suggestion of the Attorney General for Ireland that this man, who has nothing to gain and everything to lose by a third trial, is burning and anxious to have a third trial. The Attorney General said we cannot come to a decision, because the matter may be tried a third time.
SIR R. WEBSTER: I said the Government were unable to come to a decision as to the costs, because the case
460
must be tried a third time, but I submitted that it would be undesirable to come to a decision on the merits of the action, because there must be a third trial.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Then what was the point of the hon. Gentleman's observations as to the merits of the action? The question we have to consider is whether you are going to pay Concannon's costs.
MR. SPEAKER: The question is the adjournment of the Debate.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I recognise the inexorable logic of that decision, Sir. We ask for the adjournment of the Debate in order that we may have the Judge's charge before us. When the Government think the charge of a Judge is in their favour they produce it without it being asked for, but when it is the other way they cannot be got to do it.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never saw the shorthand notes of the Chief Baron's judgment until the day before yesterday, and it was only yesterday that I recognised that it differed essentially from the report in the Freeman's Journal.
MR. T. M. HEALY: This is my point, that the Government, when a charge is in their favour, have both eyes open, but when it is a charge on which we rely, they only see it the day before yesterday.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I asked for the charges of the two Judges, but they could not be obtained together at once.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I accept the statement that the right hon. Gentleman could not with due diligence obtain the charges sooner. But I submit that our demand for the adjournment of the Debate in the absence of the Judges' charges is not unreasonable. We desire to know, also, whether the learned Judges think that the expenses of Concannon should be paid by the Government. Could not this question be submitted to them? What would be done in England in a case of this kind? If Mr. Justice Murphy should say that he thinks it right that the expenses of this constable should be paid by the Treasury, I will vote for it myself. I cannot say anything fairer than that, and I submit that I am entitled to a reply.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must point out that it would be impossible to ask any Judge in England or Ireland to answer any question of that kind. Although the Judges in question distinctly stated they loft all the matters of fact to the jury, they expressed no opinion on the matters of fact. I am informed that if two similar cases had occurred in England, and the jury had disagreed, the expenses of the police would be paid by the Government.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I think it is well the Debate should be adjourned, and the merits of the question gone into. If Nolan in the meantime would take the steps that are necessary in order to discontinue the action, the merits might be fairly gone into.
MR. DILLON: I hope that after what we have heard the Government will consent to the adjournment of the Debate. If they do not I trust my hon. Friend will go to a Division. An overwhelming case has been made out in favour of the adjournment of the Debate. Everyone feels in his heart that it is desirable that the merits of the case should be fairly placed before the House. The conduct of the police is highly debateable, and it is plain that the two Judges who listened to the evidence were of opinion that the police did not act as they ought to have acted; that they ought not to have fired. [Cries of "No."] Well, at all events, it is clear that the facts of the case ought to be brought before the House of Commons before the Session ends. We have had experience on more than one occasion of allowing the consideration of cases to be postponed from one Session to another. If the police did fire on this occasion without justification they committed a great outrage, and not a single one of the men who fired ought to be entrusted with deadly weapons. If we allow this Session to go by without bringing this matter before the notice of Parliament what will happen next Session? We shall be told then by the Chief Secretary that this is ancient history, and is a matter in which no one takes any interest at all. We have been treated in such a way before, and we do not mean to be treated like it again. Therefore, I trust my hon. Friend will
462
go to a Division, if the Government will not give way.
MR. CONYBEARE: I noticed that when an hon. Member on this side of the House drew attention to the weak point at issue, namely, what was contained in the Judge's charge, hon. Members opposite made indications of dissent. That proves conclusively that Gentlemen opposite differ from us altogether upon the important question, what is contained in the charge of the Judge. I put it to hon. Members, as fair-minded Englishmen, whether it is fair to ask us to decide the question without knowing what the Judge said? The Chief Secretary said he had not seen a report of the case until Saturday last. How many of his supporters have taken the trouble to read what the Judge said? I certainly think the Government would do well to consent to the adjournment of the Debate for a few days longer.
MR. W. O'BRIEN: I venture to believe that the speeches of hon. Members opposite have made out a good case for the adjournment of the Debate. The Attorney General for Ireland distinctly evaded the important question of costs, but the Chief Secretary blurted out that the Government will pay Mr. Con-cannon's expenses. If there is an adjournment we shall get considerably further into the confidence of the Government. I agree with my hon. Friends that we ought to have before us the Judge's charge and the evidence given at the trial. I understand the charge was given by the Chief Baron himself; and as to the evidence, I venture to say a Government reporter was present throughout the whole course of the trial, taking notes of the evidence and of the Judge's charge. The Government ought to-night to tell us whether or not they are in a position to give us a full and complete report of the evidence. I think we are entitled to know whether or not the police reporter was present, and did take down the whole of the evidence, and, if so, whether the Government will lay the notes fully before the House, in addition to the charge of the

463
Chief Baron. The charge of Mr. Justice Murphy does not appear to have been supplied by him. If the police reporter is not in a position to supply it I would suggest that the verbatim report of the charge which appeared in the Freeman's Journal—generally a very accurate journal in the matter of shorthand reporting—should be submitted to the learned Judge, and that he should be asked to say whether it is a correct report of what he said, and to supply any deficiency he may find in it. If a police reporter was present the House should, I think, be placed in possession of his notes. I think the House is coming to the conclusion that there is something very much astray in this case, and that the consciences even of the supporters of the Government are being touched in reference to it. The Government would, in my opinion, be wise to adjourn the discussion now, and before it is resumed full materials should be forthcoming for taking the judgment of the House with reference to it.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There was no Police report.
MR. E. HARRINGTON: The Government are tonight without the necessary evidence.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We have no means of getting the evidence. There is no Government report of the evidence. The only report I know of is the Freeman's Journal report, and that of course we cannot use.
MR. W. O'BRIEN: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the police reporter whom I saw taking notes of the evidence throughout has no notes?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no knowledge of a police reporter having been present. I can only say that no Police report was ordered by the Government, and that no police reporter, as far as the Government is aware, was ordered to be present, or was present, on the occasion.
MR. E. HARRINGTON: I place more reliance on the right hon. Gentleman's statement than he does himself. He told us to-night he was still awaiting the Report from Chief
464
Baron Palles. ["No, no !"] He talked of the time it took for the learned Judge to correct his proofs. Well, surely it will be some time before hon. Members have that Report in their hands. We claim that the Report of the Judge should be in the hands of Members before they give a final vote. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien) about the presence of a police reporter, I believe, from my own knowledge of Ireland, that it was impossible for a police reporter not to be present on the occasion. A few persons in the town of Tralee, suspected of being of Nationalist proclivities, met together in a peasant's house, and by direction of the authorities a police reporter was present to watch the case. It is impossible to think that in a case of this kind the Government did not direct an official reporter to be present. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as the representative head of the Government, he did not direct that an official report of the case should be supplied to him from day to day.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
MR. E. HARRINGTON: Then I must accuse the right hon. Gentleman of the grossest negligence in this matter-By laying the Report on the Table the Government might dispose of this matter in five minutes on a subsequent occasion, and possibly without debate. What good can the Government expect to come from the attitude they have adopted on this question?
(1.48.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 82; Noes 147.—(Div. List, No. 193.)
Original Question again proposed, "That this House doth agree in the Committee in the said Resolution."
DR. TANNER: I think the House has not had a fair opportunity of discussing this Report. If the Government had not broken their pledge the Vote would have been taken at an hour when it might have been adequately discussed. I have only recently had an opportunity of seeing the man Con-

465
cannon. I know him, and, in my opinion, he is just as guilty as if the four shots had taken four lives. I agree that the House ought to be supplied with a transcript of the shorthand notes taken at the trial. Are we to understand that a shorthand writer was not present on the instructions of the Government?
Sir JOHN COLOMBrose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
Debate resumed.
DR. TANNER: In the first place I was trying to address myself to the details of this particular case, and I was seeking to point out the case as an additional reason why we should go on with the discussion. There are many other matters relating to the Constabulary which demand our attention-We want to know why the constable who was taken red-handed in a moonlighting expedition was permitted to escape by his fellow constables, and allowed to leave the country on board one of the New York steamers at Queenstown. But I must refer back to the case of Inspector Concannon. We believe him to be a murderer in thought, if not in deed. We have it admitted that the police fired their rifles on that occasion at Charleville without orders, and I say that the sooner the House deals with this matter, and deals with it in a proper way by giving an impartial investigation into the circumstances, the better it will be for all concerned. It will certainly tend to promote an improved state of things as regards law and order in Ireland. Under the present system every petty constable at every small station in and about the country is a despot. The police are looked upon with suspicion, contempt, and horror. All this is the outcome of the dastardly policy of a cowardly faction. [A laugh.] It is all very fine for hon. Members to laugh while they remain perfectly safe in this country, and do not have to encounter humiliation at the hands of these police scoundrels in Ire-
466
land, but I do submit that something should be done to put an end to this state of things, which really amounts to a condition of anarchy, thanks to the efforts of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
MR. P. J. POWER: When we complain of conduct of the police such as that of which they were guilty at Charleville, we are told by the Attorney General that we have the Criminal Law at our disposal, and yet he refuses to put this Criminal Law in force, when, as we submit, a ease has arisen for its application. But it is evident to me that the Government wish to hush up these charges against Inspector Concannon, and they ought to be ashamed of such a desire. It is notorious, in connection with the trials which have already taken place, that Judges who were not particularly friendly to us, expressed their opinions against the actions of the police. The Attorney General for England has just treated the Committee to a speech couched in tones of high morality. That is what we are used to from him. We know how he has always treated the Irish Members, how he has used his position to pursue them. Our contention is that in England costs would not be paid for the defence of police in such a case as this, and we object to the public money being expended for the defence of Inspector Concannon. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, in his speech the other night, said the verdict of posterity on his administration would be that he had endeavoured to stand between the oppressor and the oppressed. I think it is a somewhat strange commentary on that statement that he should approve, as he has done in this case, the action of a police official in firing upon the defenceless crowd.
Mr. BARTLEYrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
MR. SPEAKER: I am bound to say that I think for the last quarter of an hour the Debate has not been of a character to induce the House to prolong it much further. I shall not consent to the Motion for the present; but I am bound to say that if the Debate goes on

467
in its present form I shall be obliged to consent to it.
Debate resumed.
MR. P. J. POWER: We Irishmen are just as anxious to go home as hon. Members opposite, but we complain that the Government are alone responsible for the prolongation of the Debate, because of their refusal to accept the moderate proposals we are making. This matter is one of great importance to the Irish people. The lives of these people depend, to a great extent, on the action of the Government; and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has made the Constabulary so indignant against us that they stop at nothing in order to hurt us. I maintain that, as the Minister responsible to this House, it is his duty to repudiate the action of the Constabulary in such cases as this. But, unfortunately, he declines to throw the police overboard when they are guilty of the most outrageous conduct. There was a case almost as bad at Mitchelstown the other day, and on that occasion the action of the police was confirmed by the Government. I think we should be wanting in our duty to our constituents if we did not exhaust every form of this House to extract from the Government some statement repudiating the action of these men, and unless we do get such a repudiation I am afraid that during the next winter more people will be shot down by the police for merely asserting their rights as citizens.
MR. B. HARRINGTON: I do not intend inflicting a long speech on the House, but I wish to say a few words as to the case of Devlin. Here was a man caught red-handed in the act of moonlighting, as gross a case as any of those which have eventuated in sending men into penal servitude for 10 years. He was actually forcing a door when, fortunately, in the interests of justice, the tenant, a man of strength and determination, caught him and took him to the police barracks, although Palmer threatened to kill him. The peasant having handed over the moonlighter to the police, went away
468
without formally charging him, and advantage was taken of this fact to let the man out of custody, pending the issue of a summons against him. The man, consequently, escaped from the country just as proceedings were being taken against him, and the Inspector, when questioned on the subject, merely remarked, "You will have to go a long way to find him." I say that the Government directly connived at this man's escape from justice. We intend to let the country know these facts, and thus expose the insincerity of the Government policy.
Lord ELCHOrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided:—Ayes 143; Noes 66.—(Div. List, No. 194.)
(2.35.) Question put accordingly, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
The House divided:—Ayes 143; Noes 66.—(Div. List, No. 195.)

INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL [LORDS] (No. 348.)
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION CONTINUATION SCHOOLS BILL.—(No. 27.)
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REMISSION].
Committee to consider of authorising the remission of a loan, made by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland in respect of Killeany Pier, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session relating to Local Loans (Queen's Recommendation signified), tomorrow.
It being after One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
House adjourned at ten minutes before Three o'clock.

THE EARL OF MAYO
Took the Oath.
COLONIAL COURTS OF ADMIRALTY BILL—(No. 44.)
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with an Amendment.
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (BOROUGH OF BELFAST) BILL.—(No. 91.)
Commons Amendment to Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be read 2a To-morrow; and Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. to be considered in order to their being dispensed with.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.")

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 15) BILL.
A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to the City of London—Was presented by the Lord Balfour.
THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, I beg to present a Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders which have been made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts relating to the City of London; and, in pursuance of the notice which stands in my name on the Paper, I have to ask the House to suspend the Sessional Order of the 10th March last, and to allow the Bill to be read a first time. The circumstances are these: The Brush Electric Engineering Company and another syndicate applied for Provisional Orders, authorising them to supply electricity in the City of London. At first the Local Authority, that body being the Commissioners of Sewers, objected to it, but after a time they agreed to let certain portions of the City be so supplied under an agreement with the parties concerned. The agreement was
310
not one which the Board of Trade Could make the subject of a Provisional Order, and, therefore, all the complicated arrangements which are necessitated in adjusting a Provisional Order had to be gone through. Although the period of the year was somewhat late, the Board of Trade, desiring to carry out the wishes expressed, thought it was their duty to proceed with the Order. It took somewhat longer than was anticipated, but it has been completed, and under all the circumstances, and, as I may say, this will be the last time I shall have to ask your Lordships for indulgence in regard to the Sessional Orders this year, I hope your Lordships will agree to suspend the Sessional Order and to read the Bill a first time.
Moved, "That the Sessional Order of the 10th of March last, 'That no Bill originating in this House confirming any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate shall be read a first time after Friday, the 16th day of May nex,' be dispensed within respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read la; agreed to; Bill read la accordingly; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners."

PHARMACY ACT (IRELAND) (1875)
  AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 172.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
    THE EARL OF ERNE: The objects of the Bill which I am now asking your Lordships to read a second time, and which I may say has passed the House of Commons practically without opposition, are two-fold: the first is to provide for the registration of chemists and druggists in Ireland, for the purpose of their selling poisons, who were in business before 1889, and for the examination of all persons who shall desire to become such henceforth. The second object is to give those chemists and druggists representation upon the Pharmaceutical Council, which they do not at present possess. The original Pharmacy Act, passed in the year 1875, contemplated two grades; the first grade to pass the higher examination and to be empowered to compound medicines, as well as to sell poisons: the second grade to pass a modified examination, and to be qualified to sell poisons only. But, in consequence of the absence of a restrictive clause in the Act, it was

    311
    found that if the second-class were registered they would be entitled to do all that the first-class could do, that is to say, to compound medicines as well as sell poisons; and, in consequence, the Pharmaceutical Society of that day passed a resolution that, for the present at all events, there should only be one grade. After the passing of that Act nothing practically was done until the year 1888. In that year a Bill was introduced into Parliament by a Member of your Lordships' House, at whose sudden death all those who had the privilege of his friendship were deeply shocked and grieved, and whose loss has been keenly felt by all who are interested in Irish affairs, upon which he was so high an authority. I allude to the late Lord Milltown. He introduced a Bill in that year which passed through this House after having been referred to a Select Committee; but when it went down to the House of Commons it was opposed as being of too restrictive a character, and, after some negotiation, a compromise was effected, but unfortunately the period of the Session at which this compromise was arrived at was so late that the Bill had to be dropped. The Bill which I am now asking your Lordships to read a second time is mainly drawn upon the lines of that compromise. The necessity for this Bill arises from the defective nature of the Act of 1875, under which the Pharmaceutical Council considered they were prevented from registering the second grade, as was contemplated in the Act. In consequence of this condition of things a number of chemists and druggists throughout Ireland are carrying on the sale of poisons at their own peril, and are liable to prosecution; and I believe, in more than one instance, prosecutions are pending against members of that body. It may be said that the pharmaceutical chemists can supply the want which is admittedly felt; but the pharmaceutical chemists are of a superior class, and are only to be found in the large towns, and. it is, of course, of very great importance to the small farmers who are scattered up and down through the country that they should be able to buy their cattle medicines and sheep wash, and things of that kind—and also I may add that the same remark applies to the manufacturers in the North of Ireland in regard to
    312
    their requirements in the way of chemicals for bleaching purposes, which are more or less in the nature of poisons—without having to go to the pharmaceutical chemists in the large towns. I believe that the chief objection which is taken to this Bill is in reference to the provisions for the registration of these chemists and druggists for the sale of poisons without their having to pass an examination. But I venture to suggest that that is really a matter for Committee, and if your Lordships will be good enough to give a Second Reading to this Bill it can there be more minutely considered and better dealt with. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Fermanagh [E. Erne.])
    THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD (who spoke, by leave of the House, sitting): My Lords, as I take great interest in the Bill which has been brought forward by the noble Earl, I would venture to say a few words upon it. It is a much more important Bill than the noble Earl has led your Lordships to suppose. This Bill has really the intention of permitting any man throughout Ireland who chooses to call himself a chemist or druggist to act in that capacity without an examination. There was an Act passed, called the Pharmacy Act, in 1875, by which it was enacted that after that time all persons who wished to carry on the trade of a chemist should pass an examination. Unfortunately that Act was not very carefully drawn, and there was no proper provision made for registering chemists and druggists in practice before 1875. Well, that made it most difficult for the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland, who look after such matters, to ascertain (because the onus of proof rested upon them) who were the people who were entitled to carry on this trade without examination. There was another flaw in this Act of Parliament. It provided for an arrangement by which two grades could be created in Ireland, the members of one of which were to be pharmaceutical chemist. I believe the Act was drawn by Sir Michael Hicks Beach in 1875, and he arranged to make it as much like the English Act as

    313
    possible. In England, both classes pass an examination that would entitle them to have the making up of prescriptions; the procedure in Ireland is rather different from that in England. The men who had been in the habit of selling poisons did not seek to be allowed to make up prescriptions, and they did not want to pass an examination, and they wished to continue as before. This Bill now provides that everybody who has been breaking the law since 1875 should be recognised and should be allowed to continue to sell poisons without examination. I can hardly believe that your Lordships will agree to such a proposal as that. The noble' Earl suggested that the Bill might be amended in Committee; and I hope sincerely that it will be, because if there were not a promise of that kind made I should most decidedly move the rejection of the Bill. Perhaps your Lordships can hardly imagine the difficulties which would occur from the recognition of such a state of things as exists at present in Ireland, where such men as grocers, hucksters, dealers, and ironmongers are all selling poisons. A grocer may be serving out pounds of butter having beside it oxalic acid on the same shelf, and another man may be selling baking powder which is lying beside arsenic. These men are all perfectly unqualified, they pass no examination whatever, and this Bill is to legalise them and perpetuate the mischief. What I should propose would be that the Bill should be amended very much in Committee. I may tell your Lordships that the Act of 1875 did legalise and permit such men as these to sell poisons without examination if in practice before 1875, but they had been in the habit of doing it and had some experience. Since 1875 a large number of men have taken up the trade, and are selling poisons indiscriminately all over Ireland. The noble Earl spoke of the desirability of small farmers being able to get poisons for cattle and sheep washes, but in these days, with the existence of the Parcels Post, there is no difficulty in people getting whatever they want from the pharmaceutical chemists in the towns. The noble Earl said that this Bill is virtually the same as the compromise measure of the Earl of Milltown, but I cannot quite agree with him.
    THE EARL OF ERNE: I said as altered in the House of Commons.
    THE MAEQUESS OF WATERFORD: I cannot agree with the noble Earl, because that was in the direction of registration on examination, and the point of this Bill is no examination. One of the main points of that Bill was that examination should be enforced. Therefore on the main point that measure differed materially from this Bill. A general practitioner from Belfast, Mr. Rankin, gave very important evidence before Lord Mi11town's Committee upon this point. He said that if men of this description, hucksters, grocers, and men of that description, were allowed to sell poisons throughout Ireland it would imperil the lives of the public. I think your Lordships will agree with that, that it certainly would imperil the lives of the public. But to my astonishment I find that Mr. Rankin is one of the promoters of this Bill, and the fact is that Mr. Rankin himself has been carrying on the sale of poisons against the law, and was not very long ago brought up before the Magistrates in Belfast and fined £5 for so doing. Hence, I believe, one of the reasons why this Bill has been brought forward is, Mr. Rankin is Secretary of the Druggists, Association in Belfast. I have also seen a paragraph in a paper which is called the British and Colonial Druggists' paper, I forget its exact title, in which it is suggested that the druggists throughout Ireland should begin to make up prescriptions; that is to say, that these men who pass no examination and have no knowledge whatever of the subject should begin to make up prescriptions, in order to cause the Pharmaceutical Society to prosecute them all, and thus, as the Pharmaceutical Society has but a small amount of fund at their disposal, that they should break the Pharmaceutical Society, and by doing so get themselves recognised. That shows the animus with which this Bill is brought forward. I am told that the great misfortune in Ireland is that the police do not prosecute those men who are breaking the law. I believe that in England in the analogous cases of the sale of adulterated foods or anything of that kind the police do prosecute. There was evidence before Lord Milltown's Committee of a case of poisoning which occurred before 1886 being brought before the attention of the police,

    315
    and where the police refused to prosecute. I think it is a very serious matter that this illegal practice should have been going on in Ireland of selling poisons indiscriminately all over the country, and that yet you should have the police taking no notice of it whatever. The Pharmaceutical Society no doubt do prosecute, but the onus of proof rests with that Society, and their funds have only enabled them to bring forward very few cases where they could institute prosecutions. This is a very serious matter, and I think the Irish Government ought to take notice of it. There are certain points which I think ought to be amended in this Bill, but I will not detain your Lordships with them now; I will only express the hope that the noble Earl will agree to the amendment of those points when the Bill comes into Committee.
    LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, my attention was only called to this Bill this morning, but I have received some letters and a telegram of rather an alarming character with regard to its provisions. It comes no doubt from a source from which one would not have expected correspondence of that description. One correspondent alleges that—
    "The Bill would place a premium on illegality by encouraging it at the expense of the law-abiding."
    And I am sure that everyone will agree that is not a good thing for the Government to do in regard to Ireland either at the present or at any other time. Another correspondent writes—
    "It is very hard that political services, such as have been rendered to the Conservative Party by wholesale chemists and druggists, should be rewarded at the expense of the public morality and by danger to the public safety in the manner proposed."
    Those two quotations show, I think, that this Bill will require very careful consideration, the necessity for which has been added to by the details which have been entered into by the noble Marquess who has just spoken.
    THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: I do not rise for the purpose of assisting to raise any controversy upon this Bill, but to emphasise that it is an important measure, affecting Ireland very materially as to the sale of poisons. I do not know but that there would be some difficulty in regard to people selling whatever may
    316
    be required near the large towns, but in the country that is not the case. There there is no difficulty in obtaining them, and therefore it has been thought necessary that this Bill should be brought in for the purpose of licensing this large class of persons, some 2,000 in number, I think, to sell poisons. This Bill has met with some opposition from the Pharmaceutical Society, but that body does not wish that the Bill should not pass. On the contrary, they are anxious that it should become law; but they are also anxious that it should only pass with certain Amendments which they will propose at a fitting time. The Amendments which they propose refer to the number of chemists and druggists who have been practising since 1875 under the old Act, and they think that if those persons are to be registered they should pass a very small examination, in order to prove their fitness to sell these poisons and dangerous drugs. Another Amendment which they wish to be introduced is as to the position of their Council. But these matters will, I hope, be gone into in detail in Committee, and I should venture to hope that the noble Earl who is at the head of Irish affairs in this House might be willing that this Bill should be referred to the Standing Committee, where all the Amendments that may be proposed can be fully gone into. But, whatever may happen, your Lordships will agree with me, I think, that poisons should not be permitted to be sold in Ireland in this way at a wholesale rate. Although my noble and learned Friend seemed to think that the Conservative Party owe something to those who had to do with the selling of poisons, I hope no bad result has taken place from it. At the same time, if poisons are allowed to be sold without restriction wholesale all over the country, great harm might be done, persons might disappear on such occasions, and it would then be rather hard to find out whence the poisons had been derived. Therefore, I think the restrictions which the Pharmaceutical Society desire should be placed on the sale of poisons will receive due consideration when the Bill comes before the Committee.
    LORD MORRIS: I should not have intervened in this discussion had it not been for the suggestion of my noble and learned Friend opposite, that this Bill

    317
    has been promoted for the advantage of persons in the Conservative interest in Belfast, because I have been asked to oppose it on the opposite ground. I have been asked to oppose the Bill on the ground that it has been supported by the Member for Belfast, whorepresents Nationalist views, and from the fact that some of his colleagues who had given notice of opposition had been solicited to withdraw, and did withdraw, their notices of opposition. So that it appears persons have been asked to oppose this Bill, and solicited to do so from a variety of motives. It appears to me that the Bill ought to be allowed to pass the Second Reading, and that in Standing Committee all the modifications that may be necessary in it can be there made.
    THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN): My Lords, I was under the impression that the Bill was for a very technical purpose and of a somewhat dull character; but after the statement of my noble and learned Friend opposite there appeal's to be some fear that if this Debate should be prolonged we should be landed in a discussion more exciting than was to be expected. I rise merely to say that the Bill has received the countenance and support of the Government in the other House. It is the result of a compromise which was effected between certain Members of the other House last Session upon Amendments on the Bill of Lord Milltown. As far as the principle of the Bill is concerned, the Government is prepared on the present occasion also to support it. On the other hand, I am bound to say that the points which have been mentioned by the noble Marquess behind and others certainly seem to render it desirable that the Bill should receive careful consideration in Committee. I should be very glad that the suggestion of the noble Duke should be adopted, and, if it be the wish of the House, that the Bill should be referred to the Standing Committee on General Bills, when the Amendments which have been mentioned by my noble Friend can be carefully taken into consideration.
    THE EARL OF ERNE: I am quite prepared to accede to the suggestion of my noble Friend that this Bill, if your Lordships will consent to read it a second time, should be referred to the Standing Committee on General Bills.
    On Question, agreed to.
    Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to the Standing Committee for General Bills.

SETTLED LAND BILL.—(No. 185.)
House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order).
Clause 4.
LORD HERSCHELL: I have to propose an Amendment in this clause which is little more than verbal. It is to meet a doubt which has been raised by my noble and learned Friend Lord Selborne in Standing Committee, whether this clause might not cover, and ought not to cover, arrangements where money has been advanced, and where, therefore, the arrangement made is part of the security.
Moved, to insert in line 15, after "arrangement," the words "not being a security for the payment of money advanced."—(The Lord Herschell)—Agreed to.
Clause 11.
LORD HERSCHELL: I have to move to add at the end of this clause a subsection to define incumbrances, so as to exclude determinable, annual, and other sums, which were clearly not intended to be included in its terms; but before doing so I have an Amendment to move in line 23, after the word "required," to insert the words "and also the amount properly required for payment of the costs of the transaction," That is in cases where mortgages are consolidated and arrangements made for the payment of a lower rate of interest.
Amendment agreed to.
Another Amendment moved, at the end of the clause to insert the following sub-section:—
"Incumbrance in this section does not include any annual sum payable only during a life or lives or during a term of years absolute or determinable.—(The Lord Herschell.)—Agreed to.
Clause 13.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The Amendment of which I have given notice, or the substance of it, was proposed in the Standing Committee on Law by the noble and learned Lord who introduced this Bill. His Amendment

319
did not meet with the full concurrence of the Committee, and I have now to propose an Amendment which I think is a very important addition to that which was proposed by my noble and learned Friend, namely, a proviso limiting the power of tenants for life to raise money under this clause to the amount of half the rental of the estates. I think it should be borne in mind that the Act of 1882, which is generally called, I believe, Lord Cairns' Act, was brought forward very much in connection with the Act which had been passed in the year 1864 for giving powers to limited owners to raise money for the purpose of making permanent improvements upon their estates. Under the; Act of 1864 a great variety of objects could be attained by limited owners, but it did not include, among the permanent improvements provided for, the restoration of the mansion house or residence of the owner of the property. But in the year 1871 an Act was passed to which I should wish to call your Lordships' attention, namely, the Limited Owners Residences Act, which gave the same powers as were given by the Act of 1864 to limited owners to raise money for the re-building of their houses. The Limited Owners Residences Act, 1871, enables a tenant-for-life to re-build the mansion house under the powers of the Improvements of Lands Act, 1864, with which Act it is incorporated, and the Act of 1871 enacts that the re-building of a mansion house is to be deemed to be an improvement within the meaning of the Improvements of Lands Act of 1864. The other improvements within the meaning of that Act are all introduced in the Settled Land Act of 1882; but the provisions of the Act of 1871 were, unfortunately, excluded from the provisions of the Act of 1882. The result is that that improvement which was introduced in the Act of 1871, and incorporated into the Act of 1864 was excluded in 1882, and, therefore, all the benefits which accrued from the Settled Lands Act of 1882 are lost entirely as regards the Act of 1871. I have said that under the Act of 1882 a limited owner can sell his property, or can sell a portion of his land, and expend the proceeds in a variety of ways; he can spend it in irrigation, in draining, in plantation, in the building of cottages,
320
in the building of homesteads, and in building farm-houses. He can do a great many other things; he can build for a good many other people; but there is one thing he cannot do, and that is he cannot build a house for himself. Well, my Lords, the question is, Is it fair, is it just, to have excluded this provision, which was incorporated in the Act of 1871, from the provisions of the Act of 1882; and now that your Lordships have an opportunity of re-enacting and bringing this improvement back again, of incorporating it with the provisions of the Act of 1864, and assimilating it to the other improvements which were included in the Act of 1882, I would humbly suggest that it ought to be taken advantage of. The noble and learned Lord opposite evidently thought that this was an opportunity of doing so, that it was in conformity with the principles of this Bill that this Amendment should be introduced. I have brought it down, I think, to very small dimensions. I am only asking that a limited owner shall be able to raise by the sale of land to the amount of as much as one-half the rental of his property for the purpose of effecting this very important object of permanent improvement. It is said by those who are opposed to this that it will discourage insurance. I must say I do not propose it with any idea of that kind. It is a great deal too small an addition to the powers given to act as a discouragement to insurance, and I propose it not at all to discourage, but as a supplement to, insurance. We know perfectly well when a house is destroyed by fire there is not only the loss of the fabric, but there is the loss of contents. Does the insurance meet that loss? When you come to counting the cost of restoration the insurance very rarely covers the loss, and I think this Amendment would give great assistance to those who, like myself, have had the misfortune to lose their houses, and are still under the obligation to restore them. Those who are connected with the agricultural interest, and who are dependent on the soil, know well that this country has passed through a period of great depression, and I think that every assistance which Parliament can give to relieve both landowners and tenants from the effects of that depression should be given. It is said, and I

321
cordially agree in the statement, that property has its duties as well as its rights. A landowner to perform his duties must reside upon his property. Absenteeism is one of the evils which statesmen and Parliament have had to deal with in regard to Ireland. We do not want absenteeism here; it is an evil which we wish to avoid. In order that a man may reside upon his property he must have a house in which he can live, in order that he may perform those duties which devolve upon him. It is to assist in that object that I now propose this Amendment should be adopted in the name of my noble and learned Friend opposite, which I believe to be just and fair, and one which, I think, on grounds of public policy worthy the Support of your Lordships' House.
Moved, in Clause 13, page 4, line 11, after sub-section (iii.) to insert the following sub-section:—
(iv.)"The re-building of the principal mansion house on the settled land; provided that the sum to be applied under this sub-section shall not exceed one-half of the annual rental of the settled land."—(The Earl of Feversham.)
THE MARQUESS OF BATH: I trust your Lordships will not agree to the Amendment which has been moved by my noble Friend. This matter was considered in the Standing Committee to which the Bill was referred, and the Standing Committee did not think fit to recommend this Amendment to the House. Let me call your Lordships' attention to this point: it is the duty of every wise man to insure his house, and if he does not insure it, it is on him and not on the inheritance that the burden ought to fall Then your Lordships should bear in mind also this: that a property is not improved by increasing the mortgages upon it. The powers of charging estates under Lord Cairns's Act are thought by some to be of doubtful expediency, and they are only justified on the ground that you charge the estate for re-productive work. It is supposed, and I hope the supposition will prove true, that precautions are taken that the money which the tenant for life is empowered to charge upon the inheritance is so laid out that the value and the proceeds of the inheritance will be in future increased. Now, I will ask how the inheritance can be in any way benefited by the building? of a mansion house? Clearly it is the
322
duty of the tenant for life to insure, and it is his duty to re-build, if he chooses to re-build, should his house be burned down. But the increasing of charges upon the inheritance for works that are not in themselves re-productive must end in the ruin of properties, and be of no sort of benefit to the community. I have every sympathy with my noble Friend who has had this very misfortune, having had a house burned down some years ago, which is now in course of rebuilding, but I do not think the laws of the land ought to be altered to suit the convenience of Members of your Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF POWIS: This Amendment is somewhat vaguely worded. It says that the sum to be applied under this sub-section "shall not exceed one-half of the annual rental of the settled land." Now, what does the "settled land" mean? Does it mean the estate which surrounds the house, or does it mean any property the owner may possess in half a dozen counties which may be under the same settlement? Does it mean that money may be raised upon, or part of an estate in Devonshire sold to improve a house in Northumberland, or that money may be raised upon property in Derbyshire to improve or re-build a house in Leicestershire? The noble Earl spoke of this power not having been given in the Lands Improvement Act. I think if any money is to be raised on an estate for re-building a mansion-house it ought to be done under similar arrangements to those specified in the Estates Improvement Act, namely, that it should be paid back by instalments within a certain number of years; because clearly the restoration or rebuilding of a house does not add to the improvement of an estate: it is simply putting it in the same position as it was in before, which would be guarded by insurance. And it very often happens that the building of a mansion house, under the direction of a lavish architect, makes the house a burden to the estate which it is not able to bear. I think, therefore, that this clause, if it is to be adopted at all, would have to be limited, and that it should, at all events, be made more distinct that the land that is to be brought in and charged with the rebuilding of the mansion house should be

323
the property upon which the mansion house is situate. I feel disposed to concur with the noble Marquess that it would be better to maintain the decision of the Standing Committee.
LORD NORTON: There seems to be a considerable amount of caprice in the arguments which have been put forward on this subject. I believe that until lately if a man over insured his house and it was burnt down he was in danger of being hung; and now it seems if a man under insures his house it is an argument to be used against him that he ought not to be able to charge his estate for the restoration. I had an experience the other day in having my house burned down, and I had insured it as far as I might safely do without endangering my neck under the law. I have, therefore, to meet the over expense of re-building the house by loan. The noble Marquess says such a charge ought not to be thrown on the estate, but it bears just as much on the estate to make up the sum required for re-building the house by loan, as by the charge possible, if this Bill passed. The noble Marquess says that a Bill should not be passed for the benefit of Members of this House, but it is not at all exclusively for the benefit of Members of this House that this Bill is proposed, but for all people who have houses with settled estates round them which may be burnt down. The noble Earl near me says he does not understand what "settled estate" the Bill means to charge; whether it means if a man has property in half-a-dozen counties he is to be empowered to charge to the amount of half the rent of all his estates for the restoration of his house. I quite understand that what the noble Earl who moves the Amendment means is that the property surrounding the mansion house burnt down should bear the cost up to half the rental. That seems to me to be a very moderate proposition. I do not suppose that any mansion house which is burnt down is insured to such an extent, or can be safely insured to such an extent as that the very moderate sum of half a year's rental of the property adjoining the mansion would not be a fair amount to contribute to such restoration.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I did not mean to intervene in this interesting discussion, but I must say I am rather astonished by what my noble Friend, who has just spoken, has said. I was not aware that it was an offence in law to insure your house to its full value, and until the noble Lord points out the statute to which his statement would seem to have reference, I shall still remain under the impression which I hold that such insurance is a prudent, a proper, and an ordinary thing to effect.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I will only add one sentence. I see no objection to "re-building;" but I confess that "restoration" somewhat frightens me. Restoration is a term which is usually applied in the case of churches and buildings of an ecclesiastical character, and is generally understood to mean the destruction of the ancient character of a building, and in the case of a mansion house I should be very sorry that it should be done at the expense of the estate. I very much doubt whether it would not be better to confine it to rebuilding.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I shall be perfectly willing to accept the suggestion of my noble Friend.
A noble LORD: My noble Friends have attempted to raise a discussion on the principle of the Bill, but even if we could do so I think it would not be expedient upon re-commitment. I should view the Bill very differently according to whether it was to be regarded as a final measure or as a compromise, in other words, what is popularly called "the thin end of the wedge." But I am quite sure it is not introduced in that sense by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Herschell; and if it was to be one of a series of measures of this-sort I am quite sure he would tell us so. I had the honour of being upon a Committee with that noble and learned Lord, and I must say, if I may be allowed, he-showed so much consideration for the objections of his opponents, and of delicate feeling for the views of those with whom he did not altogether agree that it will always be a satisfaction tome to, if possible, meet him half way Taking this Bill, then, in the sense of being a final measure, and not in the way of a compromise, I will say that I

325
should not oppose it if it came to a vote. But I object to the principle of this legislation on two grounds. I think the Bill so far from attaining the object desired, as it is regarded outside, frustrates it. I am not in the least speaking now of the motive of the noble and learned Lord in introducing the Bill, and very likely he knows of special cases where it may be of urgent importance on grounds of expense and practical convenience in cases of small properties of perhaps 25 acres; but there is a large section of the public who support legislation in this direction under the idea that it will facilitate the extension of land holding and the multiplication of freehold lodgings. Mr. Alm, before the Allotments Committee, said that was the ground of his support of the Land Transfer Bill. I would ask your Lordships to consider for a moment what is the most likely way in which these multiplications of holdings can be brought about in the way of sale; and I say, unhesitatingly, that it is in cases where the mansion and demesne are reserved. Where the mansion and demesne are sold, they pass away from the proprietor, whose family has, perhaps, held them for generations, it may be to some capitalist; whereas, if there is a reservation of the mansion and demesne, there is no reason why the land outside should not be sold in separate lots and to different persons. It is not the majority of those who support legislation of this kind who would wish to see the manors of England dismantled, or the parks, which are the distinguishing feature of the landscapes of England, destroyed and broken up. Wherever the mansion and demesne are reserved there is always a chance given to a family which has held the estate of recovering its position and maintaining itself in the locality where it has existed, perhaps, for centuries. Of course, the Bill is promoted in the interest of landowners, and it is so far of advantage to them that they will be in a better position to maintain their mansions. It occurs to me that where there is a difference between the tenant for life and the Trustees in nine cases out of 10 the members of the family are in favour of the retention of the mansion and demesne, and are with the Trustees as against the individual; and I say, in this
326
legislation you are sacrificing the family to the individual. Those are the grounds upon which, though I should not vote against the Bill upon the principle, I should not vote for it as it is introduced before your Lordships' House by the-noble Earl.
On Question, their Lordships divided:—Contents 22; Not-Contents 21.
Resolved in the affirmative.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I would make one suggestion to the noble and learned Lord. It may be unnecessary, because the Court, as I understand, has to approve of these schemes, and it might, per-haps, deal with the matter; but it is quite obvious, supposing an insurance upon the house which has been burned down, it-would not be reasonable for the tenant for life to put the money in his pocket and raise the amount upon the estate necessary for the purpose of re-building the house. It ought, I think, to be made clear that the money received from the Insurance Company should go as far as necessary towards the re-building of the house, and that if sufficient for entirely re-building the house, no money ought to be raised. That ought certainly to be made plain.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think so too, and also that the calamity must have happened—that the house must have been burnt down; because otherwise the tenant for life might pull down the house by way of improvement, and re-build it at the expense of the remainder man.
THE EARL OF POWIS: I would suggest to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that the power should be limited to the estate on which the house is situate.
EARL CADOGAN: As the word "rental" is used in the Bill, I would ask, Does that mean gross or net rental?
LORD HERSCHELL: With regard to the noble Earl's suggestion, I am not sure that the security against what has been pointed out would not arise in this way. These are improvements within the meaning of the original Act, and Section 26 of that Act provides that—
"Where the tenant for life is desirous that capital money arising under this Act shall he applied in or towards payment for an improvement authorised by this Act, he may submit for approval to the Trustees of the Settlement

327
or to the Court, as the case may require, a scheme for the execution, of the improvement, showing the proposed expenditure thereon."
So that the tenant for life would not be able to expend the money at his own pleasure without a scheme. Probably in that way he would be prevented doing what the noble Earl has suggested. With regard to its being confined to the particular estate, I apprehend the power ought to be confined; but I suppose the Court would see that it was an estate settled to similar uses to that for which the mansion house existed. It would not do for some remainderman to expend the money raised from one state upon another estate. That ought obviously to be guarded against. If it were confined to estates settled to the same uses, I do not know that there would be any harm. The remainderman would be the same, although the money would not arise from the same piece of land as that surrounding the principal mansion house. I take it, it would be better for the remainderman, rule, because he would get the estate with the mansion house upon the estate habitable instead of ruinous. That is the advantage he gets out of it.
Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 212.)

CUSTOMS CONSOLIDATION ACT, 1876, AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 152.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: My Lords, this Bill has pass3d the House of Commons, as I understand, with the assent of the Government. It proposes to amend one clause in the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, which defines the penalty attaching to vessels for breach of the Revenue Laws. As that section at present stands, the penalty is forfeiture, whatever may be the size or value of the vessel. This Bill proposes to substitute a fine in the case of vessels of 250 tons burden and over. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill, and that it be referred to the Committee on Law.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.

PAUPER LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND) (OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION) BILL.—(No. 209.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD DE ROS: In asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, I will merely say that it has received the sanction of the other House of Parliament, and also of Her Majesty's Government. It is for the purpose of benefiting a class of persons, the officers and servants of pauper lunatic asylums in Ireland, who have a very great amount of wear and tear, and whose duties require the exercise of a great amount of humanity and discretion in performing them. The Bill provides that the Governors may, at their discretion, recommend certain sums to be given to the officers or servants when incapacitated by sickness, age, or infirmity, or who have attained the age of 50, and have been in the Asylums not less than 15 years. That recommendation is to be approved by one of the Inspectors, and is to receive eventually the sanction of the Lord President in Council. I hope your Lordships will grant a Second Reading to this Bill.
  Bill read 2a(according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
  Report from, That the Committee have added the Lord de Ros, the Lord Tyrone (M. Waterford,) and the Lord Morris to the Standing Committee for General Bills for the consideration of the Pharmacy Act (Ireland) (1875) Amendment Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.