Sitting of 19 June 1890

QUESTIONS.

  TYPE-WRITTEN PETITIONS.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Walsall, (Sir C. Forster), as Chairman of the Committee on Public Petitions, whether his attention has been called to the fact that certain Petitions, the bodies of which are written by a type-writing machine, have been returned to the Members presenting them, with an intimation that, being informal, they would not be submitted to the Committee, and whether the Committee has ever
  1322
  decided the question as to whether typewritten Petitions should or should not be considered as regular; and, if not, whether, considering the inexpediency of unnecessarily restricting the right of public petitioning, he will use his influence with the Committee to accord to type-written Petitions the same treatment as to written ones?
  SIR C. FORSTERstated that certain Petitions had been returned to the members who had presented them, under the Standing Order against Petitions "in print or lithograph," the clerk to the Committee being of opinion that the Petitions in question were not written in the sense required by the Orders of the House, and that he could not, therefore, submit them to the Committee-In answer to the further question of his hon. Friend, he had to state that the Committee had determined that these Petitions were not regular, and could not be received, but that it was competent to him to move a modification of the Standing Order in a future Session.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to give notice that next Session I will move to amend the Standing Order to which the hon. Member refers.

  CONDEMNED ADMIRALTY MEAT.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the assurance given by him, on the 5th instant, in relation to the disposal of beef and pork by the Admiralty applies to all beef and pork deemed unfit for issue or re-issue to Her Majesty's ships, seeing that the answer given on the 5th instant specifies in terms only one part of such beef and pork?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): I am glad to have the opportunity of publicly assuring the hon. Gentleman that in referring to "condemned" salt beef or pork I intended it to be understood that all such meat, whether actually unfit for food or not, considered unsuitable for issue or re-issue to Her Majesty's ships, would not be sold by public sale, but would all be delivered, after the chemical treatment I have already described, to contractors for use in the soap-boiling trade.

  NAVAL ENGINEER.
  CAPTAIN PRICE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, considering the unsatisfactory position of the whole personnel of the steam branch of the Navy, as evinced by the fact that several engineer officers of high rank have recently left the Service to obtain better salaries in private employ; that great difficulty is experienced in obtaining suitable men as engine-room artificers, and also as stokers, and that dissatisfaction with their pay and position exists throughout the various classes, he will consider the propriety of appointing a Departmental Committee to inquire thoroughly into the position of this section of the personnel of the Navy?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The Admiralty have no difficulty in obtaining suitable men as stokers and engine-room artificers, and only quite recently the 1,700 additional second-class stokers required on account of the increase to the Fleet were raised with great ease. The advantages offered to the stokers are sufficient to attract satisfactory recruits, whilst the pay and position of the engine room artificers have attracted an excellent class of mechanics. As regards the engineer officers, it is certainly true that one or two gentlemen have recently resigned their commissions in order to take appointments with private firms: but this has been, and always will be the case, and is not confined to this branch of the Service, but occurs in other Departments and Services of the State. Under the circumstances, I do not consider that any Departmental inquiry into the position of this branch of the personnel of the Navy is required, for I am confident the more I look into the subject that no difficulty will be experienced in obtaining an ample supply of eligible candidates for the engineering branch of the Navy.

  THE CUSTOMS.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any examinations for appointments in the Customs Department have been held for the past three years; and whether any examinations of Customs candidates will again be held; and, if so, will he say when?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): Examinations for Customs boatmen have been held within the last three years, and one examination for out-door officers. With these exceptions there have been no examinations for Customs appointments within the last three years, and I am informed that it will probably not be necessary to hold any for some time to come.
  MR. SEXTON: Does the answer of the right hon. Gentleman also refer to the Excise?
  MR. JACKSON: No; it only refers to the Customs?

  NEW POLICE COURT FOR WANDSWORTH.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether ho proposes to approve the plans for the erection of the new Police Court for Wandsworth on the Lavender Hill site, having regard to the fact that that site is a mile outside of Wandsworth; and whether he is aware that the Chief Magistrate is of opinion that the Lavender Hill site is not in the best position for the business, and that the proposed removal of the; site so far from Wandsworth itself, has occasioned great dissatisfaction there?
  MR. OCTAVIUS V. MORGAN: Will the erection of the new Police Court for the Wandsworth district, at Lavender Hill, near Clapham Junction, be commenced about August, as stated on 21st April last?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): A Departmental Committee, which included Lord Rosebery, Sir E. Henderson, and Sir J. Ingham, reported in 1881 that a new Court ought to be erected as near as possible to Clapham Junction. The Wandsworth District Board of Works, more than once, in 1887, strongly urged upon me the desirability of this being done. A new site was accordingly acquired, with the concurrence of the then Chief Magistrate and the Commissioner of Police, at Lavender Hill, which is not more than 400 yards from the Clapham Junction Railway Station. It is doubtful whether this site could now be disposed of except at a loss. It is true that Sir John Bridge has expressed

  1325
  doubts as to the convenience of the new site. The plans are now before me for approval, and in the ordinary course the building will commence early in August. Under all the circumstances I do not think it will be to the public advantage to re-open the question of the site now that matters have progressed so far, and there being such a weight of opinion in favour of the suitability of that particular site.

  SCOTCH UNIVERSITY CHAIRS.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Scottish University Commissioners, who are understood to have already taken much evidence on the question of the changes to be introduced into the conditions attaching to the Chairs in the Faculty of Divinity, propose to present at an early period the Special Report to Her Majesty upon this matter, which they are directed to make by the Universities (Scotland) Act of 1889?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOK SCOTLAND (Mr. M. T. STORMONTH DARLING,): The Commissioners are fully alive to the expediency of presenting' the Special Report upon this matter so soon as they are in a position to do so, but it is impossible for them at present to fix any date, as they are still engaged in hearing evidence.

  MASSACRE OF CHRISTIANS IN MACEDONIA.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreig'n Affairs whether he has now at length received aay information regarding the massacre of a large number (in some accounts estimated at 80) of Christian refugees by Mohammedan Arnauts, which was stated a fortnight ago in many Continental and English newspapers to have taken place in the district of Kossovo, in North West Macedonia, and also regarding the conduct of the Turkish Local Authorities, who are reported in some of these accounts to have connived at the slaughter of the refugees.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOK FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): No confirmation has yet been received of the report, which appears to have originated at
  1326
  Munich, but inquiry will be made as to whether there is any foundation for it. I may be permitted to take this opportunity of stating, with reference to a question of the hon. Member, in regard to certain
  "Accounts which had appeared in the newspapers of horrible cruelties stated to have been perpetrated upon Armenian Christians in the district of Khanos, between Bitlis and Eizeroum,"
  that Her Majesty's Consul has reported that the inquiries which he has made lead him to believe that there was no loss of life during the attack which was made in the valley of Alashgerd upon certain labourers on their return from Russian territory, and that over £100 of the money carried away by the Kurds has been recovered, and four of the offenders are in custody. The persons attacked appear to have been Nestorians, and the attack to have taken place between Bayazaid and the Russian frontier.
  MR. BRYCE: Has the right hon. Gentleman obtained the information which was promised 10 days ago with reference to a reported massacre in Macedonia? It is alleged that this outrage was perpetrated with a view of exacting money.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not make it plain what his purpose was. I will make further inquiry.

  BRIXHAM HARBOUR.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a Memorial from the Commissioners of the Brixham Harbour and Market asking for a Provisional Order for the purpose of defining the manner in which the market tolls are to be dealt with, and generally to amend the Law as to the funds arising from the market; and whether the Board of Trade has any power to act as prayed in such Memorial?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEAOH,): I have received the Memorial referred to by the hon. Member, but the Board of Trade have no power to deal with the matter.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been

  1327
  called to the state of the Brixham Market funds; whether the Local Government Board can, under Section 303 of "The Public Health Act, 1875," by Provisional Order, amend the Local Act, 1 Vic. c. 75; and whether any inquiry has been made into the case of Brixham Market by the Royal Commission, on Market Rights and Tolls; and, if not, whether he will communicate to the Royal Commission the Memorial presented to the Board of Trade by the Commissioners of the Harbour and Market of Brixham?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): The Local Government Board receive from the Brixham Market Commissioners an annual Return, of the receipts and expenditure of the undertaking, for the purpose of the Local Taxation Returns, which are presented to Parliament. My attention has not otherwise been drawn to the state of the funds of the market. The Board would be empowered by the Public Health Act to alter the Local Act on the application of the Sanitary Authority of the district, if, as I believe is the case, the Act does not confer powers or privileges on any persons for their own pecuniary benefit. I understand that there has been no local inquiry by the Royal Commission on Market Rights and Tolls with reference to the market in question. I have no information as to the Memorial which has been presented to the Board of Trade by the Market Commissioners, but I will direct the attention of that Department to the suggestion contained in the question of the hon. Member.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: The President of the Board of Trade says that he has no power. Assuming that no power exists, either in the Board of Trade or the Local Government Board, will the President of the Board of Trade forward the Memorial he has received to the Royal Commission?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I shall be quite ready to do so.

  THE METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Goverement, taking into consideration the onerous and wearing nature
  1328
  of the Metropolitan Police, and the opinion of experienced authorities that 25 years' performance of such duties generally unfits a man for any other employment, will introduce a provision into the Police Bill entitling every Metropolitan police officer and constable, after 25 years' "approved service," to a pension equal to two-thirds of his pay, without condition of age or medical certificate?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The Government have embodied in the Police Superannuation Bill now before the House the proposals which, after careful consideration, they recommend the House to adopt. My hon. Friend asks me whether the Government will alter those proposals; but I think he must feel that it would be unusual and inconvenient to anticipate the discussion which must take place in Committee on the Bill, when the Government will be prepared to state the reasons which have actuated them, and to discuss any Amendments that my hon. Friend may think it right to propose. I may point out that the scale of the Government Bill is identical with that which was recommended by the Select Committee of 1877, proposed in the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, and adopted in the City Police Bill of last year.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the pay of the City Police is considerably higher than the pay of the Metropolitan Police? I desire to give notice that in Committee upon this Bill I will move an Amendment embodying the terms contained in my question.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am afraid that I cannot reply to the question in detail, without notice. I will, however, make full inquiry into the question if the hon. Member will put down another question.

  GAS AND WATER UNDERTAKINGS.
  MR. OCTAVIUS V. MORGAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether Local Authorities have power to transfer gas or water undertakings, acquired by them by Provisional Order or Act of Parliament, without statutory powers; and, if not, whether the provisions the Board of Trade have inserted in Electric Lighting Orders now before the House, enabling Local

  1329
  Authorities to transfer undertakings to be authorised by those Orders, are ultra vires?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am not aware that Local Authorities have any power to transfer gas or water undertakings acquired by Provisional Order or Act of Parliament without statutory authority; but provisions have been inserted, in accordance with the powers of the general Acts, in the Electric Lighting Orders, granted this Session, authorising Local Authorities to transfer their powers and liabilities to any company or person with the consent of, and upon terms to be approved by, the Board of Trade. I am advised that such provisions are not ultra vires.

  "SHADOWING" POSTMEN.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in the Evening News and Post, in which it is stated that, while two postmen were walking home on Friday night last, one of them was seized by the throat by an overseer of the Eastern District Post Office, with the object of turning down the man's collar in order to get his number; whether he is aware that the man assaulted was suspected of attending the Postmen's Union meetings, and that this overseer had been shadowing him all the evening in order to report him for punishment; and whether the Post Office Authorities have power to engage overseers on such work?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): So far as I have been able to ascertain, the statement in the paragraph to which the hon. Member refers is absolutely without foundation. I am not aware that any one was assaulted, or that any one, to use the hon. Member's words, was shadowed, and think it in the highest degree improbable.

  BURIALS IN WALES.
  MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a letter from the Rev. Evan Davies, Wesleyan minister, of Conway, with reference to the burial of William Williams in the churchyard of
  1330
  Gyffon parish, directly contradicting the information supplied by the Rev. Thomas Ellis, rector of the parish, to the Home Secretary, that he (the rector) had received no notice of burial such as the Act of 1880 required when the relatives wish to dispense with the Church Service, and enclosing a copy of the notice of burial actually served on the rector; whether it is in such letter alleged, contrary to the statement of the rector, that he (Rev. Evan Davies), and not the rector, was authorised by the widow of the deceased to conduct the burial service; and whether, in view of the grave scandal occasioned in the neighbourhood by the incident above referred to, he will direct an inquiry to be made into all the circumstances of the case?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir; I have received such a letter. When I stated, in answer to a former question, that "the rector had received no notice of burial under the Act of 1880," I appear to have misunderstood the words used in the rector's letter to me, which were that he had received no intimation that there existed a desire to bury the deceased under that Act. It now appears that the rector did receive such notice from Mr. Davies, but the deceased, being a non-parishioner, the Act of 1880 did not apply, and the notice was, therefore, in the rector's opinion, null and void. The rector, to whom I have referred Mr. Davies' letter, emphatically reaffirms that he was distinctly authorised by various relatives, but, not, as I understand, by the widow, to conduct the service; and it was to meet their earnest wishes that he finally consented to conduct the service according to the rites of the Church of England. The facts in my possession do not show that any breach of the law has been committed. There is, accordingly, no occasion for any futher interference on my part.
  MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: As a matter of law, is it competent for a clergyman to make the interment of any person, whether a parishioner or not, in the parish churchyard conditional upon his friends abandoning their legal rights under the Burials Act of 1880?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I think it would be safer to refer, upon a question of law, to the Attorney General.

  LIABILITY OF COUNTY COUNCILS.
  MR. RANKIN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he intends to introduce any legislation this Session to clear up the existing doubt as to the liability of County Councils to pay for the repair of the side-walks of roads and foot pavements of streets when such roads and streets are accepted as main roads?
  MR. RITCHIE: My hon. Friend is, no doubt, aware of the decision of the Queen's Bench Division on the question as to the repair of footways of streets when such streets are main roads. I have no information as to whether it is the intention to appeal against the judgment in that case; but however that may be, I cannot hold out any expectation that the Government will propose legislation on the question during the present Session.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that only two parts out of six of the Returns relating to Friendly Societies, with abstracts of the quinquennial Returns, have been published, though the Returns relate to the year 1886 and previous years; whether he can inform the House when the other four parts, C, D, E, and F, of Part II., will be issued to Members of this House; and whether, considering the time that has elapsed, he will consent to lay upon the Table of this House a, complete abstract of those Returns, with such particulars as to the number of Societies, number of members, amount of funds, and similar information, at an early date?
  A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. MAXWELL,): The two parts, A and B, already issued, contain the information relating to the great affiliated Orders, such as the Manchester Unity and the Foresters, representing about two-thirds of the whole of the Branch Returns. Of the forthcoming parts, I am informed that C is ready for press; D is already in manuscript; E is in hand, and I therefore think that the proposal of the hon. Member would not really attain his object. I should say that,
  1332
  although the Returns relate to the year 1886, many of them are not received until much later.

  IRELAND—NAVIGATION OF THE RIVER FERGUS.
  MR. COX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether certain communications addressed to the Prime Minister by Clare Castle Harbour Trustees, relating to the Navigation of the River Fergus, have been re-directed to him; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in order to meet the request of the Trustees?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The papers referred to were forwarded to me. I am unable to propose any steps in the matter, which is one not for the Irish Government but for the Treasury, who appear to have informed the Trustees that they are unable to provide the desired grant.

  OPEN-AIR PREACHING AT ARKLOW.
  MR. DE COBAIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the condition of things in the County Wicklow; that a Mr. Hoffe and Mr. Harper, together with many of the respectable residents of the town of Arklow, in their attempt at holding a religious service on the commons some quarter of a mile from the town were molested by a mob; that a District Inspector of the Royal Irish Constabulary and a constable, instead of securing for these gentlemen the right of holding the service, took their names, and in no way interfered with the action of the mob; that subsequently the Rev. Mr. Hallowes was hooted through the town, and some Protestant ladies were similarly treated; and would he take steps to secure for Her Majesty's subjects in that part of Ireland the free exercise of their privilege as citizens when they were infringing no laws, and instruct the officers and men of the Royal Irish Constabulary in their duty to afford protection to all citizens in the exercise of their undoubted civil and religious rights?
  MR. W. CORBET: May I ask if the attention of the right hon. Gentleman has been called to this dis-

  1333
  turbance, as reported in the Times of the 16th instant, where three Protestant clergymen persisted, as alleged, in holding open-air meetings for preaching to Catholics in a district where the Catholics outnumbered the Protestants by three to one; is he aware that a few years ago similar attempts were made to proselitise the Catholic inhabitants, which gave much offence to them and to their clergy; has he seen a statement published in the papers, to the effect that many of the most respectable Protestant inhabitants disapprove of the action taken by their clergy in this matter, and also that the Resident Magistrate and Police Authorities have advised them to desist from their action; and will he consider if any, and what, further steps can be taken in the interests of law and order to protect the Catholic people from what they regard as insulting to their religious convictions?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I have also to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to a report of proceedings at Arklow on Sunday last, contained in the Daily Express of Monday; whether the statements contained in that report, namely, that the Episcopalian and Methodist ministers engaged in open-air preaching were stoned and assaulted by a hostile crowd, are true; and whether, so long as these services are conducted so as not to cause obstruction, he will protect these ministers in the exercise of a lawful right?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Have Catholic priests applied for' police protection to hold open-air services on the Shankhill Road and Sandy Row, Belfast; and so long as such services are conducted so as not to cause obstruction, will he protect these ministers of religion in the exercise of a lawful right?
  MR. W. JOHNSTONalso put a question on the same subject.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In answer to the question of the hon. Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), I have to say that I have not received a Report, and therefore cannot give a detailed answer. In answer to my hon. Friends behind me, I have to say that some very discreditable scenes of violence directed against three Protestant clergymen at Arklow, and against one or two
  1334
  members of their congregation, took place on the morning and evening of last Sunday. Every protection will be given to these persons so long as they keep within the law.

  ARMAGH NATIONAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, since the local manager, on 14th April last, refused admission to Armagh National School, County Clare, to Michael O'Brien's children "for want of room," five other children, two of them being a policeman's, have since been admitted; and whether, under such circumstances, he will now intimate, through the proper quarter, the propriety of settling this matter by admitting O'Brien's children to either Armagh or Mullagh School?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Commissioners of National Education report that they have no knowledge of the particular circumstance mentioned in the first paragraph, but they refer to the explanatory letter already received from the manager of the school in regard to the matter. He states that the accommodation in the Armagh and Mullagh Schools is quite insufficient even for the number of children usually attending them; that he has, therefore, been obliged to restrict the admission of new pupils, but that, in doing so, he takes care not to deprive anyone of the advantages of education, and that he never refuses anyone who is not within a convenient distance of another school. As already stated, O'Brien's children are within a convenient distance of Coore School, which, as a matter of fact, they had been regularly attending until an attempt was made to boycott the school, in furtherance of which O'Brien withdrew his children. The manager does not consider that, in these circumstances, he would be justified in still further inconveniencing the teachers and pupils of the two other schools mentioned by admitting O'Brien's children. The manager's action has the full approval of the Commissioners.

  MEDICAL ATTENDANCE IN IRELAND.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the statement in the

  1335
  Kerry Weekly Reporter of 7th instant, that, on 22nd May, 1890, at Tralee, a man named John Everett obtained a "red ticket" directing Dr. John R. Hayes, the local dispensary doctor, to visit his son, Charles Everett, who was suddenly taken ill that day; that the ticket was duly left at the doctor's residence, who, although Everett called three times, failed to attend the sick child; and that the child died, without any medical attendance, at 2 o'clock next morning; whether a Coroner's Order was made to hold an inquest, and summonses were at once issued by the police for that purpose; whether the inquest was held; and if, not, why not; whether it is true, as stated, that the Coroner, Major Spring, acting on his own authority, failed to hold the inquest, after directing the summonses to be issued; what return was made as to the cause of death, and whether any explanation has been offered by Doctor Hayes?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed by the police that the facts are as stated in the question. The failure of the doctor to attend on the sick child is certainly a matter requiring investigation, and I shall ask the Local Government Board to investigate it. The return of the cause of death was "convulsions," and I understand that the grounds upon which the Coroner decided not to hold the inquest, for which he had originally issued his precept, were that there was no suspicion of foul play.
  DR. TANNER: Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to institute an inquiry into the conduct of this medical officer, who happens to be a Nationalist, when he has refused a similar investigation into the conduct of a, medical officer who happens to be a supporter of the Government?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Member can show that there is any analogy between the two cases, of course, a similar course would be taken.

  MITCHELSTOWN AND FERMOY RAILWAY.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Mitchelstown and Fermoy Railway Company, which was in existence at the time of the passing of the Public Works Loans (Tramways) (Ire-
  1336
  land) Act, having obtained an order in Council in June, 1885, complied in every particular with the provisions of the said Act, and was entitled to the benefit of the same; whether he is aware that it has in perpetuity a 5 per cent, baronial guarantee, and that, on the faith of the aforesaid, it entered into a contract, in June, 1888, for the construction of its line, one of the conditions of the contract being that it was to obtain a loan from the Board of Works; and whether, under the circumstances, the Treasury will instruct the Board of Works to make the advance applied for by the Mitchelstown and Fermoy Railway Company?
  MR. JACKSON: The Mitchelstown and Fermoy Railway Company no doubt fulfilled the conditions required by the Public Works Loans (Tramways) (Ireland) Act, 1886, to be satisfied before a loan can be granted, but it was not entitled to the loan as a matter of right. I have no knowledge as to whether one of the conditions of the contract was to be a loan from the Board of Works; but I can hardly conceive that anyone would impose such a condition, or any contractor accept such a contract, without first ascertaining whether a loan could be obtained. As I have already stated, in answer to previous questions, the Treasury, in the exercise of its discretion, decided not to make any further loans under that Act.

  THE IRISH POLICE AND EVICTIONS.
  MR. PETER M'DONALD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, at the eviction of a tailor, named John Battle, from a cabin in Ardnaree, a suburb of Ballina, by Sir Charles Knox Gore, there were drafted into the town from outlying stations detachments of police to aid those stationed in the two police barracks in the town; whether the police so drafted in are to be paid an allowance of 3s. 6d. per day, in addition to their ordinary pay, which shall be charged on the ratepayers of the district; whether, in consequence of the roof of the cabin having partially fallen in, the tenant had already left the place, or was preparing to do so; and whether, under the circumstances, this large police force was required?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Police were employed for the protection of the officers who were executing the law, and they were paid 1s. or 1s. 6d. each in addition to their ordinary pay. None of it will be chargeable on the ratepayers of the district. The roof of John Battle's house had not fallen in, and the tenant had not left the place.

  THE DISTURBANCES AT CASHEL, AND TIPPERARY.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he proposes to take any action with reference to the following accusations made in the unanimous Report of the Town Commissioners of Cashel, and declared by the Commissioners, after investigation, to be established:—
  "That, at about 4.30 p.m on Tuesday the 27th ultimo, the police at Cashel charged into private houses, and furiously attacked persons who had not been out of doors:
  That they next broke into the premises of a Mr. Cahill, and made a violent attack upon two young men named Connors and Maher:
  That they next attacked the house of Mr. Michael Noonan, a respectable victualler, breaking open his door, which was locked, and that on this occasion a constable stationed at Cashel maltreated Mr. Noonan's son:
  That a little boy of 10, named O'Meara, was knocked down by a constable, who kicked him in the face while he was down:
  That two town sergeants in uniform were hustled and assaulted by policemen, and that one of them, Town Sergeant Patrick Corcoran, was violently attacked in front of the house of Dr. Coyle, and under his observation:
  That two flags, displayed on a private house on the premises of the Corporation, were forcibly removed by the police:
  That a constable, named O'Connor, threatened to shoot a lad, named Heney, in his own house at the lower gate:
  That Constable Thomas Ryan attacked an Army pensioner, named Bryan, who was standing alone and quietly in the street, and struck him so violently on the head that he broke the baton, whereupon another constable asked him did he 'wish for more;'"
  and that a boy, named Horley, aged 14, who carried a bannerette in a procession of schoolboys, had the bannerette taken from him, and was knocked down, arrested, and taken to the lock-up, and when his brother said, "Don't tear his coat," he also was arrested, and when his mother went to the station to inquire for him she was taken into custody?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give
  1338
  the information which he promised the other day?
  DR. TANNER: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the name of any reliable medical man who visited any of the persons who are alleged to have been ill-treated?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know that I can add anything to the answer I gave to a question practically identical in its terms put to me by the hon. Member for Cork a day or two ago. I suppose that some of the alleged incidents will form the subject of judicial inquiry.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Have there been any cases of persons received into the hopitals or infirmaries of Cashel or Tipperary on account of injuries sustained on the occasion referred to?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In answer to the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), I can only say that there is nothing which I have heard to induce me to depart from my original opinion I previously expressed, that no serious injuries at all were inflicted.
  MR. SEXTON: As the charges include breaking into private houses and assaults on private persons, which have now been the subject of inquiry by the Local Commissioners, I wish to know what initiative the right hon. Gentleman will take to ascertain the facts of the case if the charges are proved to be true?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have made a thorough investigation, and nothing has come to my knowledge which would suggest that I should depart from the course which I have laid down. The inquiry of the Town Commissioners did not include an inquiry into the conduct of the police.
  MR. SEXTON: There are some cases which were not the subject of judicial inquiry, and I wish to ask whether the Town Commissioners of Cashel have not stated that they would be prepared to submit affidavits to the Executive, and whether, if such affidavits are submitted, the right hon. Gentleman will, at least, order a Departmental Inquiry?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Any documents, whether affidavits or not, will receive full consideration. Until I see them, I cannot promise to found any action upon them.
  MR. T. M. HBALY: How is it that an inquiry is promised to the hon. Member for South Tyrone in reference to the conduct of a medical officer, while the public are refused an inquiry into the action of the police?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no analogy between the two cases. The question brought forward by the hon. Member for South Tyrone was as to the alleged misconduct of an official of the Local Government Board.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is the House to understand that the Government will inquire into the action of a doctor who had received a red ticket, and will not inquire into the action of policemen who has broken the heads of Her Majesty's subjects.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member seems to think that no inquiry has been made; of course I have made an inquiry.
  MR. SEXTON: The question which I ask and press is, whether an inquiry will be ordered if the Board to which I have referred submits documents?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot be expected to answer hypothetical questions of that character. Any documents submitted will receive attention, but I cannot promise that an inquiry will be held.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: Have not the Police Authorities conveyed to the right hon. Gentleman the fact that the red ticket which has been alluded to was not marked "urgent," and that it was not usual for a dispensary-doctor to go out after dispensary hours in response to tickets not marked "urgent," and if these facts have been given by the police, why does the right hon. Gentleman insist on any inquiry?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This question would have been more properly asked in relation to the previous question on the Paper; but, of course, if the statements which the hon. Gentleman makes are accurate, that will come out when the inquiry is instituted.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to convey to the House that no persons were injured by the charge of the police at Cashel; from whom did the right hon. Gentleman derive his information on this matter, and does he know that some people who were
  1340
  injured declined to report their injuries for fear of prosecution? I also wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will inquire from the various chemists and apothecaries in Cashel as to the number of people treated by them for injuries.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My answer was given on the best investigation I could make. No cases of injury have been treated in the hospitals or infirmaries of the district.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: There is no hospital in Cashel, and I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will inquire of the apothecary near the Post Office whether he did not treat people for injuries received from the police batons? I want to know the character of the men he treated, and whether they were all teetotallers.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not see the relevancy of the last observation of the hon. Member. The question of the hon. Member for South Tyrone was meant to elicit the fact that serious injuries, as far as could be discovered, had not been inflicted. I take it that injuries which are treated by an apothecary are not serious injuries.
  MR. T. M. HBALY: There is no infirmary at Cashel except the poor house.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: As it is important to know what the right hon. Gentleman deems to be serious injuries, may I ask whether eight or ten wounds inflicted on the head of a person by a constable while the person was held by other constables can be called a serious injury?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It would depend on the nature of the injuries.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: What infirmary is there at Cashel?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I coupled Cashel with Tipperary, as they are habitually coupled in Debate on this subject.
  MR. SHBEHY: What infirmary is there at Tipperary?
  [No answer was given.]

  ACTIONS AGAINST THE IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the practice of the Government in any

  1341
  cases to pay the costs of the defence in actions brought against the Irish Constabulary for acts done in their capacity of constables; and, if so, in what class of cases; whether it is the practice of the Government, in cases in which damages are obtained against members of the Irish Constabulary for acts done in their capacity of constables, to defray such damages out of the public funds; and if payment is ever made out of public funds in respect of either costs or damages, under what head in the Estimates is the money voted? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that m one of these cases a verdict for £100 damages has been given against the police, and is it proposed in that case that the Government shall pay the damages and costs?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The rule as to the payment of the legal expenses of constables, against whom proceedings have been taken for acts done by them in the execution of their duty, is the same in the Royal Irish Constabulary, the London Metropolitan Police, and in the Dublin Metropolitan Police. The invariable practice is for the constable, in the first instance, to defend himself; and when the proceedings have terminated, the propriety of indemnifying him is considered and decided by Government. If it be found to be a case for indemnifying the constable, the costs of the defence are charged to the Law Charges Vote, subhead "Defence of Officials," and the damages are charged against the Constabulary Vote, sub-head "Incidental Expenses."
  MR. DILLON: Are we to understand that the action of a constable in the discharge of his duty covers a ease in which he has exceeded the limits of his duty; and are we to understand that two or three Law Officers of the Crown, as in the case tried in Dublin yesterday, are retained to defend the constabulary at the cost of the Crown and not of the accused person?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is a question which I must leave to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland to answer. What I referred to was an act done by a constable in the execution of his duty. The question whether he exceeded his duty must be decided by the Court.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask the Attorney General whether, in such a case, the expenses of the Law Officers of the Crown in defending a constable would be charged upon the taxpayers if it is found that he acted illegally?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRBLALD (Mr. MADDEN,): I know nothing of the case except from what I have seen in the Public Press. I think the question of the hon. and learned Member had better be put upon the Paper.

  POLICE "SHADOWING" IN IRELAND.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of constables employed for the last six months, and now employed in Ireland, in the operation known as shadowing, and the cost to the State in pay, allowances, and car hire of those constables?
  MR. DILLON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, I wish to supplement it by another of which I I have given him private notice. Is it true, as stated in the Irish Times this morning, that the Executive Government in Ireland have ordered the police to put a stop to this system of shadowing?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; there is no truth in that statement. In regard to the question on the Paper, the Constabulary Authorities report that it is not the practice to employ constables specially on the duty in question. The number discharging this duty on any particular day would depend upon the particular circumstances of that day. There is no record of the additional cost involved by this duty; but it consists, for the most part, of car hire, which is believed to amount to no considerable sum, as police transport cars are, when possible, made available.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the practice of shadowing at Dungarvan Fair has been given up in consequence of the issue of a circular by the Inspector General of Constabulary? Has such a circular been issued?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; there is not a word of truth in the report.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the case of Mr. Thomas Barry and others who have

  1343
  been lately shadowed, they were followed all over Ireland by the same constables?
  [No answer was given.]
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will lay upon the Table of the House, or place in the Library, a copy of the instructions under which Commissioners of Police in Ireland act in directing persons to be shadowed by constables in the mode recently adopted; whether he has seen copies of the instantaneous photographs, taken on Whit Monday, in three different parts of the town of Tipperary, by the hon. Member for North Monaghan, showing the Rev. Father Humphries shadowed by two constables, namely, John Ahern and Jeremiah Wallace, as he was going about his pastoral duties; whether he is aware of any precedent in English police procedure for such treatment of any of Her Majesty's subjects, unless when pursued on account of definite crimes for which they were about to be brought to trial; and whether he will re-consider his sanction of a practice which risks the infliction of grave inconvenience?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware that any written general instructions of the formal kind to which the hon. Gentleman alludes have been issued on the subject since the present Government came into Office; those issued previously are of a confidential character. I have not had the pleasure of seeing the photographs in question. In answer to paragraph (3) the shadowing is in connection with a definite class of offences against the law, and I have not the least doubt that if any English town were in the condition of Tipperary measures of at least equal severity would be adopted.
  MR. PICTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will accept copies of these photographs?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; I shall feel very much obliged if the hon. Gentleman will give me copies of them.
  MR. DILLON: Have any instructions in regard to this system of shadowing been issued since the right hon. Gentleman came into Office? It is different from anything of the kind that existed under the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors. The House is entitled to know
  1344
  whether this system of shadowing has been introduced on the authority of particular Magistrates or constables, or whether fresh instructions have been issued.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not admit the correctness of the assertion that there is a great variation between the present and the previous system. As far as I am aware, no instructions of a formal kind have been issued by the Government in Dublin, and of course I am in constant communication with the officials.
  MR. DILLON: I must press for a distinct answer. The right hon. Gentleman stated in the House the other day that this system of shadowing was done under his authority. I can state of my own knowledge that the system of shadowing now pursued is something absolutely different from anything which ever took place in the country before. Are we to understand that this system of shadowing was initiated without an order of the Executive, and on the responsibility of individual Magistrates or policemen?
  EARL COMPTON: Are we to understand that during the years 1880–82 this practice existed? I was in Ireland at the time, and saw nothing of it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The time to which the noble Lord refers was when Lord Cowper was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and I do not know that the system to which I allude was in operation before the Lord Lieutenancy of Lord Spencer. On the 19th of June, 1882, Mr. Healy asked the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division (Sir G. Trevelyan), then Chief Secretary, whether his attention had been called to a statement in a Belfast newspaper to the effect that Inspectors of police had watched a local contractor, and the right hon. Gentleman replied, "It is quite true that the police have been carefully watching persons, but I decline to say on what ground."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I may explain to the House that this man was suspected of being the murderer of Lord Frederick Cavendish. It turned out that he was unjustly suspected; but he was persecuted by that abominable system for over 12 months.
  MR. DILLON: I state of my own knowledge that the system of shadowing

  1345
  now pursued was never in force before. The question and answer which the right hon. Gentleman has just read had no reference to a system of shadowing similar to that which is now adopted. It simply amounted to watching.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is impossible to raise an argument now as to what happened in 1882.
  MR. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned it.
  MR. SPEAKER: Only in answer to a question by the noble Lord the Member for the Barnsley Division (Earl Compton).
  MR. DILLON: The noble Lord did not mention that year.
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that if the same state of things existed in England that exists in Tipperary the same method of shadowing would be observed. Are we to understand that if in the town of Buckingham a state of things existed similar to that which exists in Tipperary the system of shadowing by the police would be enforced at Buckingham?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member must know either very little of Buckingham or very little of Tipperary.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Questions of this kind must occupy a great deal of the time of the House unless the First Lard of the Treasury will consent to take the Irish Police Vote at some very early date. Will the right hon. Gentleman do that?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): If the right hon. Gentleman will repeat the question on another day, I will endeavour to answer it.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I will repeat the question to-morrow.

  CHARGE AGAINST POLICE SERGEANT LORD.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the Report furnished to him in the case of charges of forgery and fraud made by John Maher, of Lorrha, against Sergeant Lord, of that station, the fact is stated that some time after Maher had made his complaint to the Inspector General of Constabulary, he was waited on by Mr. Doolan, J.P.,
  1346
  with an offer of the money that Lord had previously refused to pay him; and whether, in view of this presumptive evidence that the amount claimed was due, and that Sergeant Lord was guilty of fraud on the Police Authorities by returning as a voucher a forged receipt for the money that had not been paid, the Government will direct the Attorney General to consider the case with a view to the vindication of justice?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Local Constabulary officer reports that he has not ascertained that the Magistrate mentioned intervened at any time as alleged, nor has the further inquiry instituted resulted in any discovery that the Sergeant had acted improperly in the case. The Inspector General is still pursuing the inquiry.

  MR. THOMAS BARRY.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that civil proceedings have been taken by Mr. Thomas Barry, P.L.G., against District Inspector Ball, R.I.C., Fermoy, for alleged assault, he will cause instructions to be issued to the Constabulary Authorities in Ireland not to proceed with the charge against Mr. Barry under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act arising out of the proceedings for which the civil action has been brought by him, until the said action has been brought to a trial?
  DR. TANNER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether a warrant has been issued for the arrest of Mr. Barry, P.L.G., at the instance of a policeman named Drought, against whom Mr. Barry had previously instituted legal proceedings?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am unable at present to answer the question of the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), and, in regard to the other question, it would be a dangerous precedent to lay it down that a prosecution could be deferred by the person prosecuted bringing an action. There seems no ground for fearing that the prosecution will prejudice the civil action.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Barry's house was broken into the night before last and Mr. Barry made prisoner? As the case

  1347
  has been adjourned owing to some legal technicality, will he give instructions that the civil action shall take precedence of any other proceedings?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have received no intimation of the fact mentioned by the hon. Member, and I am unable, in the present state of my knowledge of the circumstances, to lay down a general principle.
  DR. TANNER: Is it not the fact that this member of the Royal Irish Constabulary has already been charged with participating in a savage assault in which a poor woman was killed, and will the right hon. Gentleman remove him from Formoy whore his action is occasioning much disturbance?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no information that would enable me to reply to the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is the practice of the police when charged with an offence to serve summonses by way of retaliation. Was not that so in the case of Wit hams and Fleming?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is not a question arising out of the answer.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: I thought I was giving point to the matter by referring to a particular instance. In this case, was it not within the knowledge of the police that Mr. Barry was about to bring a civil action, had he not already taken preliminary steps, and have not the subsequent proceedings of the police been taken by way of retaliation?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no information to lead me to suppose that that was the case. My impression is the other way.

  THE CLANRICARDE TENANTRY.
  MR. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Head Constable Judge and the police in Portumna have been going amongst the Clanricarde tenantry with a list of the tenants who they say paid their rents; who supplied this list to Head Constable Judge; and by whose orders this constable and the police under him are doing this duty of bailiff for Lord Clanricarde?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have received no information that will enable me to answer the question. Inquiry is being made.
  MR. SHEEHY: I will repeat the question to-morrow.

  CHARGE AGAINST THE IRISH POLICE.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of two constables of the Irish Constabulary who were convicted before County Court Judge Henn, at Gort, on the 13th inst., on a charge of the false arrest and imprisonment of two men, named John Morressy and Martin Fahy, at Portumna, and ordered to pay damages and costs, including the fees of counsel; whether it was by the instructions of the Crown that Mr. Blake, the Crown Prosecutor, defended the police; is it the intention of the Crown to pay the cost of the trial, and also the damages awarded against the police; and whether any action will be taken by the Police Authorities against the constables for their conduct in this matter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The reply to the inquiry in the first paragraph is in the affirmative; to that in the second paragraph in the negative. Pending the result of an appeal, I am not in a position to make a further statement.
  DR. TANNER: Am I to understand that the legal expenses will only be paid in the event of the men being convicted?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman must not understand anything of the kind.

  THE POLICE AT NEW TIPPERARY.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is a fact that, on the 11th instant, during the night, the police burnt down a green flag which was on a flag-staff at New Tipperary; whether it was replaced, on the night of the 15th, by a flag, which was seized and carried of£ on the 16th; what authority have the police for taking what does not belong to them; is it legal for the police to do so; and will he inquire into the circumstances of the seizures with the view of preventing their recurrence?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that it is the case that the police removed the pole and flag on each of the days mentioned, but it is not the case the poles were erected at New Tipperary. They were in Henry Street, Old Tipperary. The police removed the pole and flag because it was an obstruction. When it was replaced on the night of the 14th, they warned the people living in the vicinity that it should be removed. The police took it with them because nobody claimed it, and it could not be loft lying on the street. The police acted legally in the discharge of their duty.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether some delay has been caused because the Chief Registrar devoted part of his Report to criticisms of the proceedings of the Select Committee last year?
  SIR H. MAXWELL: No, Sir. I think those criticisms were necessary.

  PRISON WARDERS' UNIFORMS.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has received complaints from warders of Irish gaols that they have been subjected to annoy ance from the fact of being compelled to wear official prison uniform in public?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In one instance only does such a complaint appear to have been received by the Irish Government.
  MR. MAC NEILL: As the system has been instituted only by the regime of the right hon. Gentleman, will he, as head of the Prisons Board, give directions for the discontinuance of it, and allow the warders to wear ordinary clothes when away on their holidays?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have nothing to add to my answer.
  DR. KENNY: Might I ask the Home Secretary what is the custom in England. Are the prison officials compelled to wear their uniforms when not on duty?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I answered that question the other day. I said that the warders of convict prisoners were under such a rule.

  GUNS FOR THE MAURITIUS.
  MR. OCTAVIUS V. MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary
  1350
  of State for War whether it is the case that the fortifications in Mauritius recently completed are still without the promised big guns, without which the fortifications are ineffective; and, if so, when the necessary guns will be ready to be mounted?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STAKHOPE,): I am sorry that it has not yet been possible to issue those guns. The guns now coming in are being issued according to the relative importance of the places to be defended.

  EVICTIONS ON THE OLPHERT ESTATE.
  MR. DALTON: I beg to 'ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if ho can state the total number of families to be evicted during the coming week on the Olphert estate; whether he has seen the statement that Mr. Olphert boasted that by November next the Falcarragh district shall be laid waste, and that not a tenant shall hold a foot of his soil; whether fresh proceedings have been taken which, if persisted in, will have the effect of bringing the number of families rendered homeless in the Falcarragh district up to the appalling total of 600; and whether, in view of the desolation which must result from this, and in view of the fact that the Government have dropped the Land Bill, which contained a provision for the relief of congested districts, he can see his way to adopting a similar course to that taken by the President of the Board of Trade when Chief Secretary, in the case of the Clanricarde tenantry, or will he take any steps whatever to relieve the destitution of the district?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand there are 43 evictions pending on the Olphert estate for next week, in consequence of the continued operation of the Plan of Campaign. I have not seen the statement attributed to Mr. Olphert, that he boasted that by November next the Falcarragh district should be laid waste, nor do I believe it to be true that he made it. As a matter of fact, he has already settled with a number of his tenants. I understand that proceedings are pending which will bring up the total number of families whose position

  1351
  is imperilled by the Plan of Campaign to 458. It is not a fact that the Purchase of Land Bill has been dropped.

  THE WORKMEN OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether it is intended at the end of the present contract to cause the staff employed in general cleaning, painting roofs, &c, of the Houses of Parliament, to be paid through the Clerk of the Works, without any deduction of their pay for the benefit of a middleman?
  MR. C. GRAHAM: Before that question is answered I will ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that the London County Council has done everything in its power to eliminate the presence of middlemen in the sense indicated in this question from all its contracts?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): I am not responsible for the action of the London County Council.
  MR. C. GRAHAM: I am afraid I made myself but imperfectly understood. I wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman was aware of the fact I have stated.
  MR. PLUNKET: I do not think I am required to express any opinion on that subject.
  MR. C. GRAHAM: Still I have not made myself plain—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! What the London County Council may have done has nothing whatever to do with this question.
  MR. PLUNKET: The system under which contracts for labour and materials are entered into by the Office of Works has been referred to a Departmental Committee, with a view to the matter being fully considered before any fresh contract is entered into. This Committee will inquire into the question as to the mode of paying the staff employed about the Houses of Parliament to be adopted in the future.

  PLYMOUTH BARRACKS.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what are the rules in regard to the admission of tradesmen to the forts and barracks at Plymouth; and whether any respectable
  1352
  tradesman of the town will be allowed a pass on application?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The general principle of recent rules is to limit as far as possible the admission of persons to military works and buildings, except upon business. Provision is made for a pass for tradesmen and others who may be admitted to the residential portion of any fort or barrack, at the discretion of the General Officer commanding the district.

  LAND COMMISSION—QUEEN'S COUNTY.
  MR. LALOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of casses of appeals from the fair rents fixed by the Sub-Commission for Queen's County that were disposed of by the Chief Commission at its recent sitting; and in how many cases were the rents fixed by the Sub-Commission reduced, confirmed, and increased respectively?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall be obliged if the hon. Member will defer this question till Monday, as the Chief Commission is now on circuit.

  THE DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND BILL.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of his previous declarations on the subject, he will use his influence with political friends to prevent the progress of the Drainage and Improvement of Land (Ireland) Bill being prevented by them?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is a fact that, so far as I am concerned, so far as the Irish Government are concerned, we view with approval the Bill brought in by the hon. Member. I have no power to do what he suggests, but I do what I can by making this specific declaration in favour of the Bill.

  LOCAL REGISTRY OF TITLES (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if it is his intention to proceed with the Local Registry of Titles (Ireland) Bill this Session?
  MR. MADDEN: The Bill will, I hope, be in the hands of hon. Members in a few days.

  THE REV. MR. MACRAE.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any charge of boycotting or intimidation has been made against the Rev. David Macrae, a minister of religion at Dundee, who is at present travelling in Ireland for the benefit of his health; and on what grounds he was recently "shadowed" by the police while travelling from Newbridge to Clongorey?
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, on the same subject, whether the Rev. Mr. Macrae, of Dundee, and his wife, when visiting Clongorey on Thursday last, were shadowed by a policeman named Keating, who followed them from point to point on a bicycle, going everywhere the visitors went to; and whether he cm say why they were so shadowed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no charge of boycotting or intimidation against the rev. gentleman, and not the slightest foundation that he was shadowed. The policeman referred to was engaged on a wholly different matter.

  WHISKY BONDING.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is intended to limit the Committee on Bonding and Blending Whisky to considering the propriety of applying the Food and Drugs Act and the Merchandise Marks Act solely to foreign spirits, and to mixtures of foreign with British spirits; and if so, has he considered the possible result there from, namely, a recommendation to penalise or prohibit certain makes of foreign spirits and blends as nefarious or unwholesome, while there could be no inquiry into the case of home spirits manufactured in the same way or of the same ingredients, which are passed off on the public as Irish or Scotch whisky?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): It is not intended to place any such limit, and the terms of reference, which will be placed on the
  1354
  Paper, will include the points referred to by the hon. Member.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

  RETIRING WARRANTS—"REGINA V. MITCHELL."
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to complaints that a restrictive Treasury limit of compensation of 1882 was withheld from the knowledge of Officers of the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers when they were invited to retire under the Royal Warrants of 1881 and 1884; whether the principle of "acturial calculations" has been applied to all cases of regimental and full Colonels of the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers, and also to the cases of Lieutenant-Colonels, Royal Engineers, subsequent to that of Colonel E. M. Lloyd, who retired under the provisions of those warrants; whether a Treasury limit or Departmental ruling of September, 1882, has been applied to the cases of those Lieutenant-Colonels, Royal Engineers, who retired under the above-named warrants, from Lieutenant-Colonel E. R. James to the case of Lieutenant-Colonel F. B. Mainguy, thereby reducing their life annuities for loss sustained under warrants of a later date than 1872 to £150 a year, instead of granting them the compensation they were entitled to on "actuarial calculations," as stipulated by both the warrants; whether he will lay such Minute or ruling upon the Table of the House; and whether it is true that this Minute or ruling has been filed in the Royal Courts of Justice in the demurrer and plea in the recent case of "Mitchell v. Regina"?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: My answer to the first three of the hon. Member's questions is "Yes," with the exception that there is no stipulation in the Warrant as to actuarial calculations. To the fourth question I must answer "No;" and as to the fifth, I have no information I at my disposal.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg, also, to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is true that in 1886–7 he returned as surplus to the Treasury, under Vote 19, £25,720, voted by Parliament for the compensation of retired Officers; whether, in each

  1355
  successive year up to the present date, large sums voted by Parliament for the same purpose have been returned into the Exchequer; and whether, under these circumstances, he is prepared to recommend to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the unsatisfied claim of the suppliant in "Mitchell v. Regina," and any of his brother Officers who may have been underpaid, for favourable consideration?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the First Lord of the Treasury on the 12th of this month.

  THE VERY REV. DR. M'ALROY.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can explain the grounds which induced the Prisons Board neither to dismiss nor to censure the very Rev. Dr. M'Alroy, P.P., chaplain of Tullamore Goal, who, when summoned to give evidence relative to the conveyance of a suit of clothes to the hon. Member for North East Cork, Mr. William O'Brien, while a prisoner in Tullamore Gaol in 1887, first before Mr. Joyce, who conducted an inquiry on oath on behalf of the Prisons Board, and subsequently before Mr. Burke, Chairman of the Prisons Board, refused absolutely to appear before either gentleman or give any evidence, sworn or otherwise, in relation to the inquiry, whereas the Rev. Father O'Dougherty, late chaplain of Derry Gaol, was dismissed by the Prisons Board for refusing to answer certain questions which he considered ought not to have been put to a minister of religion, when giving evidence in an inquiry conducted by Mr. Joyce, on behalf of the Prisons Board, relative to the conveyance of letters out of the prison, with which it was not proved Father O'Dougherty had anything to do?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The General Prisons Board report that it appears, from the Minutes of Evidence in the Office, that the Rev. Dr. McAlroy not only did not refuse to give evidence before Mr. Bourke, Chairman of the Prisons Board, but was examined upon oath by him with regard to the conveyance of a suit of clothes to Mr. O'Brien, M.P. From the Report received from Mr. Inspector Joyce on the same subject, it does not
  1356
  appear that the Rev. Dr. McAlroy was called upon by him to give evidence upon the subject, but an inquiry has been to-day addressed to Mr. Joyce on the matter.

  THE ROYAL AGRICULTURAL SHOW AT PLYMOUTH.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in accordance with the usual practice, he has sanctioned the employment of an Inspector, two sergeants, and a number of constables belonging to the A Division of the Metropolitan Police, at the forthcoming Royal Agricultural Show at Plymouth; that the sergeants will be represented by two sub-inspectors, and the constables by sub-inspectors and sergeants, to the exclusion of the constablesin the A Reserve, who are available for duty of this kind; and that, in consequence of a similar arrangement last year, the number of sergeants left at home was insufficient for the proper performance of the sectional duties; and, whether he will take steps to prevent such an irregularity in the future?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have sanctioned, in accordance with a practice which has existed for many years, the employment of a certain number of officers of the Metropolitan Police at the forthcoming Agricultural Show at Plymouth. The selection of these officers is entirely in the discretion of the Commissioner. I have no information of any inconvenience or irregularity having arisen in the past, or being likely to arise in the present year.

  HELIGOLAND.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that on the 6th September, 1887, the hon. Member for Mid Cork moved the reduction of the Foreign and Colonial Vote by £1,000, in order to urge on the Government the propriety of the cession of the island of Heligoland to Germany, and that the Secretary of State for the Colonies then stated that "it is not the intention nor the desire of Her Majesty's Government to part with Heligoland to Germany;" and what has occurred since that date to cause the Government to alter its intention?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: What has occurred since that data has been the settlement of the outlines of an arrangement in which the cession of Heligoland forms part.

  CHATHAM CONVICT PRISON OFFICIALS AND IRISH CONVICTS.
  DR. KENNY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that there exists in the public mind a suspicion that so much soreness must necessarily remain in the minds of certain officials of Chatham Convict Prison, against whom charges of cruelty, &c., were made by Messrs. Daly, Egan, and other prisoners in that establishment, towards said prisoners for having made said charges, as to make it very difficult for the officials in question to discharge impartially and without friction their duties in relation to such prisoners, he will, in the interests of the officials involved, direct the removal of the prisoners in question to some other convict establishment where no ground can exist for such suspicions?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have seen no evidence that there exists in the public mind any suspicion of the kind referred to. I am assured, as a matter of fact, by the Directors of Convict Prisons, that there is no difficulty in the wav of the impartial discharge of their duties by the officials of Chatham Prison, and that no sort of soreness exists in their minds in consequence of the complaints that have been made against them. No cause, therefore, exists for the removal of the prisoners in question on these grounds. I may point out that the complaints and the events to which they refer occurred some 18 months or two years ago, yet the prisoners admitted to the visitors that their treatment had improved during the last 18 months. This shows that the officers do not cherish any resentment, as the question seems to suggest.
  DR. KENNY: I wish also to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that the recent official inquiry into the charges and allegations of cruelty and petty annoyances, &c, made by Messrs. Daly, Egan, and other prisoners undergoing penal servitude in Chatham Prison, against officials in that prison, has failed
  1358
  to satisfy public opinion in Ireland and elsewhere as to the truth or otherwise of said charges and allegations, and as to the impartiality of the said inquiry, he will consent to grant a sworn inquiry, by independent and non-official persons, as to the truth of the charges put forward?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have no reason to believe that public opinion has not been satisfied by the thoroughly exhaustive and impartial inquiry of the Prison Visitors at Chatham Prison, which, to my mind, is quite conclusive on the subject of the charges and allegations of cruelty and petty annoyance made by Messrs. Daly, Egan, and other prisoners. I have no power to grant a sworn inquiry, but the essential feature of the inquiry just concluded is that it was conducted by independent and non-official persons. The Visitors were instituted for the very purpose of having a non-official Court of Review as to the conduct of prison officials.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Has the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary done anything with a view to removing' Scotch convicts from Chatham?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am in communication with the Scotch Office.
  DR. KENNY: Is the right, hon. Gentleman aware that a great number of public bodies in Ireland have passed resolutions expressing the opposite opinion conveyed by the right hon. Gentleman as to the inquiry having been thorough and impartial?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I do not, agree with that view.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: We shall raise this question on the Estimates.

  CORONERS' JURIES AND THE IRISH POLICE.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government will assent to a Return giving, for the three years ended 31st May, 1890, particulars of any verdicts returned by Coroners' Juries, and of any prosecutions instituted against members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, with the results of the latter, and specifying whether any action has been taken by the Government in relation to the persons implicated; and, if so, what has been its nature?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No; but if the hon. Member will ask for a Return for 10 years, I will consider the matter.

  THE POLICE AND THE CASHEL COMMISSONERS.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland by what authority, and for what reason, groups of policemen hung about the entrance to the Town Hall of Cashel at the time appointed for the last meeting of the Municipal Commissioners, and took down the name of each Commissioner as he entered?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must ask the hon. Member to defer this question. I am making inquiries.
  MR. SEXTON: I will put it tomorrow.

  CUSTOMS CLERKS IN LONDON AND LIVERPOOL.
  MR. ROYDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if it is intended that the provisions of the Treasury Order, dated 10th August, 1889, which gave effect to the recommendations of the Ridley Commission, and which are now under the consideration of the Treasury, on their application to the clerks of the Customs in London, will also be applied to the clerical staff of the Customs at Liverpool; and, if so, whether the Treasury will apply the same treatment to clerks of the present staff at both places whose positions are analogous?
  SIR H. MAXWELL: I am not sure that I understand the precise meaning of the question put by my hon. Friend, but he will see that it is not possible for me to give any general pledge, such as his question suggests, upon cases not before me, without reference to the different conditions of each particular case.

  THE MORFA COLLTERY DISASTER.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the learned counsel who attended the inquiry into the Morfa Colliery Disaster, South Wales, on behalf of the Government, or any of the Inspectors of Mines, have made Reports upon the inquiry; and, if so, whether such Reports will be placed upon the Table of the House?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir; Reports have been made by the learned counsel, and by one of the Inspectors. These are now with the printers, and they will be presented to Parliament in due course.

  STRANORLAR UNION.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether the Irish Executive have yet arrived at any decision as to the relief to be given to the funds of the Stranorlar Union, in respect of the charges thrown on them by and through the improper removal from Scotland to that Union of the wife and children of James M'Cormick while the latter was in Great Britain.
  MR. MADDEN: I have made inquiry on the subject of the question of the hon. and learned Gentleman since a former question put to me by him, and I have looked at the various Acts of Parliament bearing on this subject, and I am unable to find any means by which relief could be given to the funds of the Stranorlar Union in respect of the charges cost on them by the removal from Scotland of the persons referred to in this and the former questions of the hon. Member.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: Did not a similar case occur last week, when a man who had been 65 years in this country was sent back to an Irish Union?
  MR. MADDEN: I have no information with regard to that matter of fact. It is too complicated a question for the Government to promise to introduce legislation this Session.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Seeing that this is becoming a general practice with regard to Ireland, will the Government afford facilities for passing a Bill if it is brought in by a private Member?
  MR. MADDEN: I must ask for notice of that question.

  SHADOWING.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of persons "shadowed" in Ireland, and the number "watched" by the police, and the number of policemen engaged in these operations?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot give a definite answer to this question. The number of persons whom it is considered necessary to keep under supervision and the number of police engaged on such duty vary from day to day.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a Return of the names and addresses of persons who have been shadowed since he came into office, and the causes of the shadowing? I do not think there will be any objection on the part of these people to have their names given.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I fear it would be impracticable to obtain such a Return.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Did the right hon. Gentleman say it was impracticable or objectionable?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must have notice of the question. I should think it would be impracticable.
  MR. M. J. KENNY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the Order contained in page 212 of the Police Code, issued in 1881, by the then head of the Criminal Investigation Department, Scotland Yard, in which it is laid down that, "in keeping observation on suspected persons, great care must be taken that attention is not attracted:" if the police in Tipperary have recently adopted a contrary system, persistently following and obtruding their presence on certain subjects of Her Majesty in such a manner as to amount at Common Law to an "unlawful setting upon one's person;" and if the police in this matter act under any statutory authority; and, if not, whether a case will be submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown, in order to ascertain the legality or otherwise of this practice?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not seen the Order in question. No doubt, in many cases of suspected persons the watching would be more effectual if it could be done without attracting attention. I am advised that the police have not acted illegally, and no new practice has been established.
  DR. KENNY: Is not shadowing of the nature which has been described calculated to lead to a breach of the peace?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think that it is.

  THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF TELEGRAPHISTS.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the official shorthand writer, sent by the Postal Authorities to a National Conference of Telegraphists recently held, has reported that resolutions strongly protesting against the writer's presence at the meeting were passed; and whether, in view of the great dissatisfaction thereby caused, he will in future abstain from sending such Government reporters to such meetings?
  MR. RAIKES: Having seen the shorthand notes of the Conference to which the hon. Member refers, I have no intention of modifying the conditions on which meetings for the discussion of official questions are allowed to be held. Additional evidence of the value of such a Report is furnished by the request which reached me yesterday from the officer who acted, I believe, as Chairman of the Conference, to be supplied with a copy of the official report for the use of his committee, a request which I have had great pleasure in granting.

  POLICE GRIEVANCES.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether policemen are entitled to form a combination for their mutual benefit and redress of grievances connected with their work and wages; and whether they are at liberty to hold meetings without complying with regulations similar to those imposed upon the Post Office employés?
  MR. MATTHEWS: If the police have any grievances or causes of complaint the Police Rules direct that such grievances can at any time be laid before the Commissioner through the superintendents of the divisions. I apprehend that combinations of the kind referred to would be irregular. Meetings, according to the rules, can only be held by the permission of the Commissioner. These Police Rules are quite independent of any regulations which may be made by any other Department of the State.
  MR. C. GRAHAM: Am I to understand policemen are not at liberty to form

  1363
  a trades union, or to attend a public meeting to discuss their grievances?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I cannot add anything to the answer I have already given.
  MR. C. GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the statement appearing in some of the newspapers is correct, that in future men entering the Postal Service will be required to give a written undertaking not to join the Postmen's Union or attend any Union meetings; and, if so, by whose authority has it been issued?
  MR. RAIKES: No, Sir; the statement is not correct.

  POSTAL BLOCKS.
  MR. C. GRAHAM: In the absence of the hon. Member for Cornwall, Camborne, I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has seen the statements in the Evening Nevis and Post of the 18th, to the effect that, in St. Martin's-le-Grand, work, according to all accounts, is being impeded at an increasing ratio, to the grave inconvenience of business men; and whether he still adheres to his declaration that there is absolutely no foundation for such statements?
  MR. RAIKES: I have not only not seen the statements to which the hon. Member refers, but am assured by those who, on my behalf, have examined the paper mentioned that they are not to be found there. For the credit of the paper in question I am glad that this should be so, for had such statements been made, I should have felt constrained to qualify them as absolutely untrue.

  IRELAND CHARGES AGAINST THE POLICE.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is true that Mr. James O'Brien, of Killeagh, was arrested at Youghal Fair, last Monday, by a common policeman in plain clothes, who was occupied in closely and offensively "shadowing" Mr. O'Brien; and if he can explain why Mr. Redmond, R.M., was specially telegraphed for to investigate the charge of this gentleman accused of obstructing his "shadow"? I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether a warrant has been issued for the arrest
  1364
  of Mr. Barry, P.L.G., at the instance of a policeman named Drought, against whom Mr. Barry had previously instituted legal proceedings. I have further to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the manner in which the police escort behaved to two political prisoners, Messrs. Thomas and William Kent, who were brought from the County Court gaol to a Court held in Fermoy, on Monday, the 16th of June, under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; and why, and for what reason, were the prisoners handcuffed?
  MR. MADDEN: I must ask the hon. Member to postpone these questions.

  "SHARP V. WAKEFIELD."
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he-will lay upon the Table, as Parliamentary Papers, the following documents in connection with the licensing ease of "Sharp v. Wakefield"; the statement of the case, and the judgments delivered in the Court of Appeal.
  MR. RITCHIE: I have made inquiries and cannot ascertain that there are any precedents for the presentation to Parliament of documents relating to particular cases which have been the subject of consideration in the Law Courts. The ordinary Law Reports-supply ample information as to the decisions of the Judges, and the facts upon which those decisions were based, and I see no reason to supplement those Reports in the manner proposed.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Is there not an exact precedent in 1875 when the Protection of Property Bill was before the House, and when the charge to the Grand Jury at the Central Criminal Court by the late Recorder of London, in the well-known Trades Union case of Hibbert, was laid on the Table?
  MR. RITCHIE: I will inquire into it, but I must say it appears an entirely different thing to give a charge to a Grand Jury and the papers now asked for.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Only a Session or two ago the Under Secretary laid on the Table the Charge of Chief Baron Palles in the case of Mr. Blunt.
  MR. RITCHIE: I have promised to inquire, I can do no more at present.

  AYLESBURY PRISON.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department whether it is correctly reported that he proposes to convert the local prison at Aylesbury into a convict prison; if so, why is an additional convict prison required; has there been an increase in the total number of convicts in England; what will be the cost (if any) of converting the prison to its new purpose; and will the prison be appropriated to any particular class of convicts?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir; it is the fact, that Aylesbury Prison has been closed as a local prison, in order that it may be converted into a convict prison in lieu of Woking Prison, which has been handed over to the War Department. It will not, therefore, be an additional convict prison. There has been no increase, but a decrease in the total number of convicts in England, and it is thus possible to give up the larger prison at Woking. The estimated cost of the necessary alterations is £16,500. It will be for female convicts.
  MR. BRUNNER: Is Woking to be used as a military prison?
  MR. MATTHEWS: No; as barracks.

  TELEGRAPHISTS' GRIEVANCES.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that for several years clerks in the Central Telegraph Office, at small salaries, have performed overtime of four hours and upwards without the "quarter rate"; whether he will make inquiry into these cases, with the view of paying these clerks the "rate" to which they are entitled; whether clerks are employed on wires rented by newspaper proprietors from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m., although the night duty in the Central Office was, owing to its severity, reduced from eight to seven hours; whether, considering the heavy work on their wires, he will consider the desirability of dividing these duties; and whether, having regard to the fact that telegraph clerks frequently perform from eight to 13 hours duty on Sundays, he will allow them a relief to obtain, at least, one meal?
  MR. RAIKES: I am not aware that any telegraphists in the Central Telegraph Office who perform overtime for the Department in excess of three hours have not received the extra quarter rate. If any such cases are brought under the notice of the Controller the proper payment will be allowed. The question of dividing the duties at the newspaper special wires has on several occasions been considered, but it has not been deemed desirable to do so, as such an arrangement would be inconvenient both to the officers themselves and to the Department, and would not, I think, be acceptable to the newspapers. The telegraphists, I may mention, are able to secure intervals for rest and refreshment. I am assured, with reference to the last question asked by the hon. Member, that the telegraphists on duty on Sundays have ample opportunity for eating their meals undisturbed.

  THE ANGLO-GERMAN AGREEMENT.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the Agreement proposed for the purpose of defining the spheres of influence and territories of Great Britain and Germany in Africa, it is intended to confirm to the German Empire the whole of Damaraland; and whether there is any harbour, excepting the British port of Walfish Bay, by which access from the sea to Damaraland can be obtained?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: In the Agreement there is no alteration in the Protectorate of Damaraland by Germany, which has been for some time recognised by Her Majesty's Government. The Agreement is chiefly designed to define the respective spheres of influence in regions which have not hitherto been distinguished.
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: Will there be free transit for English goods through Damaraland?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I think that the hon. Member will see that the Agreement provides for absolute freedom of transit respectively from German and British territory in Central Africa; in Damaraland there will be the rights of settling and trading.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON&c.): When will the Papers he circulated with reference to the Agreement?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I am afraid that I cannot say when the rest of the Papers will be presented, because the negotiations are not concluded; but I am sure that they will be presented at the earliest possible date.
  MR. BUCHANAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether at an early date he will lay before the House Papers beyond the Despatch of Lord Salisbury, especially the Agreement which has recently appeared in the Official Gazette of Berlin, which differs in a certain degree from the details of Lord Salisbury's Despatch.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I must ask for notice of the question.
  MR. O'KELLY: Will the principle of the "Hinterland" be applied to the Portuguese possessions?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I think I must for notice of the question.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will cause to be placed in the Library or Tea Room, for the information of Members, a map of Africa, showing the territories in dispute between Great Britain and Germany prior to the arrangement just arrived at and the exact nature of that arrangement?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Yes, Sir; as soon as possible.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what territory besides the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba is included in the proposed British Protectorate of Zanzibar?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The whole of tie dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar, with the exception of the strip of coast farmed out to the German East Africa Company, are included in the proposed British Protectorate of Zanzibar.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government intend to bring in a Bill to sanction the proposed cession of Heligo-land to Germany; and, if so, when the measure will be introduced?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Yes; as soon as the agreement has been concluded of which the outlines have been embodied in the despatch of the 16th inst.
  MR. CHANNING: I desire also to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, before introducing a Bill for this purpose, Her Majesty's Government have taken, or will take, steps to ascertain the wishes of the inhabitants of Heligoland; whether Lord Knutsford stated in the House of Commons, in. 1885, that official information had satisfied him that the inhabitants were averse to being annexed to Germany; and, further, that evidence before the Commission on Colonial Defences showed Heligoland to be of strategical importance to this country; and whether, since 1885, Her Majesty's Government have received information and evidence to a contrary effect; and, if so, what information and evidence?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I should like to ask whether it is true, as has been reported, that the Civil Lord of the Admiralty has resigned?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Were there any such crisis in the Government as the hon. Gentleman suggests, the House would have been apprised of the fact without a moment's delay. There is no such crisis. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire, and his anxiety to reconcile these apparent differences of opinion, I have to say that when Lord Knutsford spoke in March, 1885, there was no question of exempting the Heligolanders from compulsory military conscription, and this liability to conscription was, as Lord Knutsford pointed out, very distasteful to the inhabitants, and made them averse to a change. The Mover of the Address had stated that Heligoland was of no possible use to us, and Lord Knutsford only stated that some persons of experience entertained contrary views to that of the hon. Member. It may be observed that no proposal has been made by any Military Authority, or by the Royal Commission, in favour of fortifying Heligoland in any way.
  MR. CHANNING: Have any steps been taken to ascertain the wishes of the inhabitants of Heligoland?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I believe the Government are fully informed on the subject, and I have stated correctly the facts of the case.
  MR. BRYCE: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question, which was whether the Govern-

  1369
  merit have taken any steps to ascertain the feelings of the people of Heligoland?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I desire to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will lay before the House the facts which have come to the knowledge of the Government since 1885, and which have given them their present view as to the wishes of the inhabitants of Heligoland.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Hoes the right hon. Gentleman wish to convey to the House that the Heligolanders were glad to get rid of British rule and preferred that of Germany?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No, Sir. I do not wish to convey any such impression to the House. The Government have reason to believe from information that the people of Heligoland are not dissatisfied with the change.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Supposing Parliament refuses to sanction the cession of Heligoland, will the rest of the Agreement which relates to Africa fall through?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I should think that if one very grave part of the Agreement is not ratified by the English Parliament, the rest of the Agreement could not be adhered to. I am, of course, speaking now without information, and I am sure the House will see that I can hardly be asked to give a decided answer to questions of this kind without notice.
  MR. R. T. RETD&c): Has the Agreement with Germany been concluded or not?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. and learned Gentleman must be content to take the Papers which have been presented as showing the existing state of things. I cannot go beyond that.
  MR. HENEAGE: I wish to ask the Under Secretary of Foreign Affairs whether the Government have, in the course of their negotiations, considered whether the rights of English fishermen in the North Sea around the coast of Heligoland, especially in regard to the recent interpretation of the word "fishing" by the High Court at Leipsic in reference to German territorial waters?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I will bring this important question under the notice of the Secretary of State.
  MR. O'KELLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to lay on the Table the opinion of the Naval Authorities?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No, Sir.
  DR. CAMERON: The right hon. Gentleman stated that the Bill for the cession of Heligoland would be introduced when the Agreement was definitely concluded. Are we, then, to wait for the close of the negotiations as to the Niger Company?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I referred to the arrangement as detailed in the Papers now before the House.
  MR. BRYCE: Will the Papers relating to the Agreement be presented to the House before the Bill is introduced?
  SIR J. EERGUSSON: I must ask for notice of that question.

  THE LOCAL TAXATION BILL.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is now able to state what further Amendments, if any, to the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Duties Bill he is prepared to accept?
  MR. RITCHIE: I cannot add anything to what I have already said. I think it an inconvenient course to pursue to ask the Government what Amendments they are prepared to accept. I am prepared to express the views of the Government on the Amendments as they arise.

  POSTMEN AND THE TRUCK ACT.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether the Postmaster General has legal power to forfeit the wages of postmen for an alleged breach of rules in cases where the offence involves no dereliction of duty, as where postmen attend a Trade Union meeting when not on duty?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I cannot do more than refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to his previous question on this subject on June 9th. The Postmaster General can make such rules as in his judgment are necessary for the proper conduct of those employed in the Service, and it has been held that the imposing of fines for misconduct is no offence under the Truck Acts.

  THE ESTIMATES.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has further considered the question as the advisability of presenting the Civil Service Estimates this year in a different order to that which has hitherto obtained, so that the later classes of Votes might be submitted to the Committee at a reasonable date, with a view to the adequate discussion of the same; and whether he can now state when it is proposed to present the Post Office and the Revenue Estimates to the Committee?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government have already been endeavouring to meet the wishes of Members as to the order in which the Civil Service Estimates are taken. I cannot yet say on what day the Post Office and Revenue Estimates will be dealt with.

  MEDICAL OFFICERS IN ACTION.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what position do Medical Officers occupy during operations in war, and are they ever brought under fire or exposed to danger; what was the mortality among Medical Officers from casualties in action, wounds, and disease during the recent South African, Egyptian, and Burma Wars, and what percentage did the mortality bear to the number of such officers employed; how many officers of the Royal Artillery and the Royal Engineers, the Line, the Commissariat and Pay Departments were killed in the wars referred to, and what was the percentage of mortality from wounds and sickness in each of the above-named branches of the Service; was the Victoria Cross conferred on any officers of the Medical Staff during recent campaigns; and, if so, under what circumstances; what is the meaning of the phrase "Non-Combatant;" if it means that "Non-Combatant" Officers do not occupy the fighting line and are not exposed to danger, why are Medical Officers who are called "Non-Combatant," not kept in a place of safety with the Pay and Commissariat Department; excluding V.C.'s, what honours have Medical Officers received for recent campaigns, and what proportion do the honours received bear per rank to the honours given to Combatant Officers;
  1372
  and why, in the matter of sick leave, are Medical Officers treated differently from other Officers, and why they are only allowed six months' sick leave while Combatants are allowed 12 months?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Medical Officers are classed as "Non-Combatant," for the simple reason that they are not Combatants, and that there are only these two designations. It is the fact, nevertheless, that their duties take them under fire far more than other Non-Combatants, and that many Medical Officers have been killed or wounded in action, and the Victoria Cross has been conferred upon two of them. Taking six recent campaigns together, the mortality of Line Officers was 5·4 per cent., and that of Medical Officers 3·1 per cent. The question of sick leave is one of expense, as substitutes would be required for Medical Officers. This applies in a much smaller degree in the case of Combatant Officers.

  STOKERS IN THE NAVY.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a special Naval recruiting party has recently visited various industrial centres; how long it has been so engaged, and at what cost; how many stokers and engine-room artificers respectively it has recruited; and what is the present deficiency, if any, of stokers and engine-room artificers respectively?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The recruiting party in question started early in January last, with, the object of endeavouring to raise men for the Navy in districts not worked by the ordinary recruiting agents of the Admiralty, the Navy being now mainly supplied with recruits from London and the southern and western counties. The additional cost of the party up to May 31 last is estimated at about £1,200, including the difference between the full and half-pay of the officers employed. The officer in charge reported recently that he had raised, in addition to other ratings, 110 stokers, but no engine-room artificers. The party might have raised more stokers, but the number entered through the ordinary recruiting agencies, partly, no doubt, on account of the publicity given to the proceedings of the recruiting party, was so great that the Admiralty found it necessary last month to stop all

  1373
  entries at the very time when the direct efforts of the recruiting party were meeting with the most success. There is no deficiency at present in the number of stokers or engine-room artificers required.
  ADMIEAL MAYNE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the growing importance of the stokers and leading stokers to the Royal Navy, and of the fact that no improvement has taken place in their position for the last 20 years, he will consider their claims to be placed on the same footing as the seamen class of Her Majesty's Navy, and granted the second class rating, the 2d. a day on re-engaging for the second 10 years, and the progressive pay and other advantages which have been granted to the seamen during that period; and whether he would give a Return showing the comparative percentage of seamen and stokers who re-engage after 10 years' service, and who are lost to the Service by death, desertion, discharge, invaliding, or purchase during the first 10 years?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension in supposing that no improvement has taken place in the position of stokers and loading stokers in the Royal Navy during the last 20 years. During the last five years their prospects have been improved by the establishment among them of the rating of chief petty officer, carrying with it since 1887 a scale of pay ranging from 2s. 11d. to 3s. 5d. a day, while within the same period an allowance of 1d. a day has been granted for the qualification of "trained man," and 3d. a day for that of "stoker mechanic." Stokers have also been admitted to the coastguard, the privileges of which are now granted to a considerable number of them. I have had a careful comparison made between the position of the stoker ratings and that of the seamen class, and will publish it in the form of a Memorandum.

  THE BRADFORD DESTRUCTOR.
  MR. BYRON REED: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that it is contemplated to erect a "destructor" upon the confines of Peel Park, in the borough of Bradford;
  1374
  whether he has ascertained that this proposal is obnoxious to the adjacent inhabitants; and whether the Local Government Board can make to the Local Authorities such representations as will prevent the carrying out of the project, with its attendant annoyances to a crowded population, and its probable detriment to the herbage of the park and the enjoyment of those who frequent it?
  MR. RITCHIE: The Local Government Board have received representations with reference to the erection of a destructor in the neighbourhood of Peel Park, Bradford, which it is stated is proposed to be erected by the Town Council of the borough. The matter is not one in which the Board have any jurisdiction, unless it is proposed to defray the cost of the destructor out of moneys raised by loan. If any application should be made to the Board for their sanction to a loan for this purpose, they will, before arriving at a decision in the matter, direct a Local Inquiry, at which all persons interested will have an opportunity of submitting any representations they may think necessary. I may add tint since notice was given of the question I have received a communication from the Town Clerk of Bradford, in which it is stated that the proposed site of the destructor is an old disused quarry, and not in a populous locality; that Peel Park is the property of the Corporation and is highly valued by them, and that they would be the last persons to do any act that could possibly operate to its detriment; and that the proposed building which will be used solely for the purification by fire of what is known as dry ash-pit refuse, is to be constructed on a principle, the result of long and costly experiments by the Corporation, which will secure the complete destruction of all offensive emanations.
  MR. BYRON REED: Arising out of the answer, may I ask if I am to understand the right hon. Gentleman that it is not in the power of the Local Government Board to send down an Inspector to the locality to ascertain the facts?
  MR. RITCHIE: Oh, yes; it is within our power to do that, but we cannot interfere unless a loan is asked for.

  PRISON CLERKS.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Report of the Departmental Committee inquiring into the complaints of clerks serving in Her Majesty's Prisons, which, on the 5th instant, was promised "in a few days," is now in the hands of the Commissioners of Prisons, and if they have been instructed to communicate it to the clerks in question?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have only to-day received the Report in question. Until I have had time to consider it, and to confer with the Commissioners with regard to it, I am not in a position to say when or in what manner any communication on the subject will be made to the Prison clerks.

  INLAND REVENUE SALARIES.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a decision has yet been arrived at respecting the Petition of the officers of the Inland Revenue, praying for an improvement in their scale of salaries and their general treatment; and, if so, when it is probable the result may be announced?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I have had this matter under my personal consideration, and have referred to the Board of Inland Revenue for further information. When their Report is received, I hope to arrive at an early decision.

  WATERFORD PROSECUTIONS.
  MR. P. J. POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. C. P. Redmond, editor of the Waterford News, has been sentenced by Messrs. Considine and Irwin at Waterford on June 6th, to three months' imprisonment for publishing a resolution of the Kilgobinet branch of the Irish National League; whether Mr. Redmond was sentenced to a further term of imprisonment for publishing in another issue of the Waterford News another resolution of the same branch; whether Mr. Redmond was convicted on a third charge, stated by the Court to be a graver offence than the other charges, to 14 days' imprisonment, and ordered at the expiration of that period to enter
  1376
  into security himself in the sum of £200, and two sureties of £100 each, to be of good behaviour, or in default to go to prison for four months; whether there is an appeal from the last sentence; whether the Magistrates refused to impose a sentence which would give a right of appeal; whether the same course of refusing an appeal has not been adopted recently by the same Magistrates in the case of Mr. Fisher, editor of the Munster Express; and whether he is aware that every decision of Messrs. Considine and Irwin brought before Judge Waters has been reversed by him?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must ask the hon. Member to defer this question. I have not received a full Report on the case yet.

  THE STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.
  MR. THOMAS SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if it may be understood that the final decision as to the increased military contribution proposed to be levied on the Straits Settlements will remain in abeyance until the promised Correspondence and Papers are in possession of the House?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: As the Correspondence which it is proposed to give to Parliament will not be complete unless it comprises the final decision of Her Majesty's Government, I am afraid that it would not be possible that the decision should remain in abeyance until the Papers are in the possession of the House.

  SIR HERCULES ROBINSON.
  SIR DONALD CURRIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will be good enough to lay upon the Table of the House copies of the Letter from the Foreign Office, dated the 12th February, 1889, addressed to the Colonial Office, with the enclosure therein referred to; also Sir Hercules Robinson's Despatch to Lord Knutsford, dated the 15th April, 1889 (No. 270), with the enclosure to the said Letter, being a Minute of the Prime Minister of the Cape, Sir Gordon Sprigg, addressed to the Governor of Cape Colony, and dated Cape Town, 9th April, 1889?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I cannot answer without notice; but as the Papers include

  1377
  a document written by a Foreign Ambassador, I do not think I can promise the Papers.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: What will be the business to-morrow?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: In pursuance of an undertaking that has been given, the Police Vote in Supply will be taken tomorrow, when the question of the position of the Metropolitan Police may be discussed. After that the Votes in Supply will be taken in their regular order.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Will any Papers, with reference to the relations between the Home Secretary and Mr. Monro, be laid on the Table before the Debate?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: If there are any Papers which can properly be laid upon the Table of the House relating to the relations that exist between the Home Secretary and the Commissioner of Police I will take care that they are placed in the hands of Members tomorrow.

  REFORMATORY SCHOOLS BILL [LORDS].
  Bill read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 347.]
  INDUSTRIAL [SCHOOLS BILL [LORDS].
  Bill read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 348.]
  YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS BILL [LORDS].
  Bill read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 349.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  LOCAL TAXATION (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) DUTIES BILL.—(No. 244.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
    (5.20.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 228; Noes 224.—(Div. List, No. 148.)
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I beg leave to move, Sir, that you report Progress. I think after this Division it is really an abuse of the forms of the House for the Government to persevere with this Bill. The House of Commons has now decisively pronounced against them. In order to give the Government an opportunity of re-considering their position, I beg to move that you report Progress.
    (5.37.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman report Progress and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
    MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with him. The Government do not think that the House has decisively pronounced against them.
    An hon. MEMBER: Not yet.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: No, not yet. On Tuesday evening when Progress was reported the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) was in the middle of his speech moving the rejection of the 1st clause, and it was expected that to-night he would continue his speech. Right lion, and hon. Gentlemen opposite have had the advantage of a surprise, and they deserve full credit for it in every respect; whatever it amounts to in the country and the House of Commons they have the credit of it. We propose to proceed with the ordinary business.
    MR. STOREY: Perhaps I may be permitted a word in reply to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman. It is perfectly true that I got the better portion of my speech delivered the night before last, but the right hon. Gentleman will not say that because I got through the more important part of my speech on that occasion I am, therefore, compelled to go on with it this afternoon. It seems to me he is never satisfied. If we speak at length, he says we are obstructive; if we do not speak at all, he says we take him by surprise. The Government have taken the people of this country by surprise, and I think it is probable that before long the people of the country will surprise them. So far as the present Motion is concerned, I have no desire to prevent

    1379
    business going on. I hate the Bill, and I am delighted that the Government have brought it in. I propose for one to continue my opposition to it, and I think the majority of the Members of the House will end either by opposing it or by expressing a significant opinion by their absence, so that in the end what we hoped to achieve this afternoon will for after all accomplished.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: As an old Member of this House, I beg entirely to differ from the hon. Member who has made this Motion. I heard the speech, or part of a speech, which was delivered by the hon. Member for Sunderland when we were last in Committee. To-day, before the Question was put, I observed what was passing on the Opposition Benches. I saw hon. Members in close conversation, and I saw their gestures and what took place between hon. Members below the Gangway opposite and their Front Bench. Anyone who witnessed what occurred could not help but form his own conclusion that the Committee was purposely taken by surprise.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The purpose of this Motion made by my hon. Friend, if I may venture to construe it, was to make a representation to the Government and to suggest to the Government the advisableness of withdrawing the Bill. It was in our power to have continued the Debate on the first clause by advancing arguments in support of its rejection, but we trusted to expedite business by foregoing our privilege of continuing the Debate. My hon. Friend having gained the object of this Motion—namely, to give the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the House an opportunity of declaring the intention of the Government—I do not think the Motion ought to be pressed to a Division. Of course, I need not say how deeply I regret the course the Government are pursuing. Still, in the circumstances, the opportunity having been afforded, we ought not to consume time by taking another Division; and, therefore, I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw the Motion.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I made it, as the right hon. Gentleman correctly says, for the purpose of giving
    1380
    the Government a last opportunity of escaping. ["Not last."] Well, last but one; but as they have not taken it, of course I shall not persevere with my Motion.
    MR. T. M. HEALT: I notice that the Irish Secretary is looking extremely pleased at what has occurred—["Order."]
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 2.
    MR. S. WILLIAMSON&c.): I beg to move, in Clause 2, page 2, line 2, to leave out "Out of." I move this Amendment with the object of introducing the proposal contained in a second Amendment on the Paper, which proposes that the Scotch share of the money shall be devoted to the purpose of entirely freeing parents in Scotland from the liability of paying school fees, and also for the creation, extension, and improvement of fishery harbours on the coast of Scotland, as against the Government proposal for buying out public houses. I can safely say that in Scotland the entire feeling of the people is against the Government in this matter. I have presented many Petitions against the Government proposals, and though I have presented throe in favour of them, those have been from Wine and Spirit and Beer Associations. I have not received for presentation a single Petition from a public meeting of citizens in favour of the Bill, but the strongest expressions of feeling against it have reached me from all parts of Scotland. It is proposed to hand over an annual grant of £130,000 to Scotland, but the framers of this measure wish to devote a large portion of that sum for the purpose of buying out licences. My proposal is that instead of being put to such a purpose, it should be used in supplementing the grant which has been already given to free the compulsory standards in Scotland, and for extending and improving our fishery harbours. The need of proper fishery harbours is much felt in Scotland. There are several small villages and towns without the resources or the means of providing harbour accommodation, and the want is all the more felt now that large boats are being used and that steam trawling is being carried on. In regard to the appor-

    1381
    tionment of the money, I would suggest that £50,000 should be given for harbours, and £70,000 should be given for the complete freeing of education—so far as the payment of fees is concerned. This sum, I believe, will be enough—in fact, there will be a certain small balance left to be dealt with. It is, of course, in the competency of the Committee to alter these figures, but the object of my Amendment is simply to bring up the question of the creation and improvement of harbours in Scotland and the question of education, as opposed to the policy of buying up the public houses. I sincerely hope that the object I have in view will be acceptable to the House.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 2, to leave out the words "Out of."—(Mr. S. Williamson.)
    Question proposed, "That the words Out of' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. R. T. REID&c.): I desire to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Kilmarnoch Burghs, as I understand it is competent for us to discuss the propriety of applying the money allocated to Scotland under this Bill for the purpose for which the hon. Member would design it, or the purpose for which it is designed by the Government. I must say I think the Government have exhibited an unusual degree of perverse ingenuity in the number of vexed and difficult questions they have succeeded in raising by this Bill and this clause. They have raised the whole question of licensing and of the proprietors of licences being bought out by the County authorities. They have raised the whole question of temperance as it affects the whole of the United Kingdom—and no doubt it is known to the Government themselves that this is an extremely thorny question. But they have raised also another, a still more difficult and delicate question, and that is how far this House is going to impose its will upon the Scotch Members assembled here. There has been a growing irritation since this Government came into power as to the manner in which Scotch Members have been perpetually outvoted on Scotch questions. Hitherto Her Majesty's Government have shown their willingness to use their voting power in refusing such Amend-
    1382
    ments of the law as Scotch Members desire, but now they are taking a step forward in this direction, forcing down our throats alterations in the law against which the great majority of Scotch Members are resolutely opposed, backed, I will undertake to say, by the great majority of the Scotch constituencies. I will go so far as to say there is no question affecting our social life in which our constituencies take a deeper interest than this question of temperance legislation. It may be that our people suffer more from the vice of intemperance, or it may be that our people more appreciate the far-reaching consequences of these evils, but it is certain that the Scotch people are deeply anxious by all means in their power to put an end to this evil, and it is quite certain that we Scotch Members have received more representations, more petitions, on this one subject in the last two or three weeks than upon almost any subject which has come before the Scotch constituencies in recent years. I have myself presented many petitions, and I have received numerous letters, not only from members of my own Party, but from those opposed to me, condemning-the Government proposals, and I think every one of my colleagues has had similar experience. How are our representations treated? The Committee is almost without English Conservative Members; they do not care to hear our arguments and follow our discussions; we are ready to represent the distinction there is between our position in this matter and the position in England, but our arguments, so far as English Conservative Members are concerned, are addressed to empty Benches. No apology is needed for stating our case adequately: we shall make our protest, and English as well as Scotch constituencies will judge of the manner in which we are treated. First, lot me point out that the feeling in Scotland against this Bill comes from either Party, and I may illustrate this by reference to the chief burgh in the constituency I represent. The temperance feeling there is as strong among the Conservatives as among the Liberals. When the Earlier Closing Bill was before the House, a Bill with the object of enabling burghs in Scotland to close public houses an hour earlier than heretofore, a public meeting was convened in

    1383
    my constituency, and it was resolved by the Town Council to take a plébiscite of the population on the subject. The Provost of the town was Chairman of the Committee to carry out the arrrangements, and the Town Clerk was Secretary. Voting pipers were sent out to the 4,088 ratepayers in the burgh, and, as my hon. Friends know, Dumfries for a Scotch burgh contains a very considerable number of Conservatives. Out of those who returned voting papers, 2,472 were in favour of putting the Act in force, and only 313 were against it. It is, therefore, shown that the opinion is not confined to temperance fanatics, Radicals, and such-like objectionable classes, mistrusted by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but the respectable Conservative classes joined with the Liberals in what they believed to be the interests of temperance. Now, the Government say this is a temperance Bill, and a Member of the Government must needs have command of his countenance when he says so, and Party zeal must have blinded the judgment of any hon. Member who seriously believes this. Out of the Bill I suppose Scotland will get £50,000 a year, for the purpose of extinguishing licences, and these licensed houses in Scotland are worth £20,000,000 at a low valuation. If my calculation is correct, then 400 years are required before existing licences can be abolished. Take the case of Dumfries—and I suppose every hon. Member will be apt to find an illustration in his own constituency—in Dumfries there are 82 licensed houses, each worth I suppose on an average £1,000, a total of £82,000. The portion of this grant falling to Dumfries would be £224 a year, so it is quite apparent no tangible progress can be made towards the end all hon. Members in their hearts desire by means of such proposals as these. But this by no means represents the uselessness and in utility of the measure. Hon. Gentlemen opposite forget that when you take away three or four or more licences you thereby progressively increase the value of the remaining licences you do not take away. Suppose in one particular part of a burgh you have five licences, if you destroy one you do not destroy all the trade carried on by that house, but 90 per cent, of it probably goes to the remaining four houses,
    1384
    and their value is thereby increased. Then, when you destroy another of the four 90 per cent, of the trade of the second house is transferred to the three remaining houses; therefore, when you propose to devote a certain sum to the buying up of licences, remember a great deal of the money you spend is re-invested at once by the nature of your operation in increasing the value of other remaining houses. It is the most thriftless system that can be devised. If we are to buy up licensed houses, a policy I repudiate, at least we should do so as the hon. Member for Birmingham suggested, purchasing them en bloc, not buying them on a system which obliges us to pay for them over again successively. This leads me to say a word or two upon the question, what is the real legal position? Are we bound to buy up public houses before we extinguish them? If we are bound in honour or by the legal rights and position of publicans to buy the licences, it will be one of the greatest calamities to the cause of temperance that can be imagined. But I entirely deny that there is such legal right, and I must express my satisfaction at seeing the Solicitor General present, inasmuch as I shall have to say something upon the attitude he and his learned colleague the Attorney General have thought proper to take up in regard to this matter. Two years ago Her Majesty's Government brought in a Bill, one clause of which frankly recognised, so far as England was concerned, that the publicans had a vested interest in their licences. The clause was contested in the House, and the Solicitor General took occasion to say that if an on-licence was refused renewal upon a public ground, as, for example, that it was not necessary to renew it in the public interest, the Court could interfere by what is called a mandamus to compel the Magistrate to renew it. Subsequently a case was decided which really settled the matter beyond all possible doubt or controversy. By the case "Sharp v. Wakefield" it was decided, and I am now quoting from the authorised version, that—
    "The discretion of the Justices as to granting and refusing a licence by way of renewal, under the Licensing Act of 1828 and the Licensing Acts of 1872 and 1874, in respect of exciseable liquors to be drunk on the premises, is absolute provided it be exercised judicially.'

    1385
    Let me state what the facts of the case were. On an application to the Justices, under the Licensing Act of 1828, for a renewal of a licence to soil exciseable liquor by retail to be drunk on the premises, the Justices refused to renew the licence, on the ground of the remoteness of tin; inn from police supervision and the character and the necessities of the neighbourhood. An appeal to the Quarter Sessions was dismissed, and on a case being stated for the opinion of the Court, Lord Esher, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Fry, and Lord Justice Lopes, confirming the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, held that the discretion vested in the Justices under the Licensing Act of 1828 had not been affected by the Licensing Acts of 1872 and 1874, and that it was, therefore, competent for them to withhold the licence on the grounds stated. I do not understand what the Solicitor General and the Attorney General mean when they tell us that that case does not decide the question which is in issue before us now. In my judgment it decides the question as clearly as any decision possibly can decide any question. The Attorney General appears to have expressed the opinion that it could not be a judicial exercise of discretion if the discretion was so exercised as to refuse a licence to a respectable and proper and worthy man. By the decision in the case of Sharp v. Wakefield, the contrary is expressly laid down, and when we are considering as a matter of policy the wisdom or the unwisdom of entering upon a purchase of public houses with public money, the very root of our investigations must necessarily be what are the legal rights possessed by the publicans or the owners of the public houses. I say those legal rights admit of the licences being refused. As to the practice in Scotland regarding the renewal of licences, I have no doubt hon. Gentleman around me will be able to quote instance after instance in which renewals have been refused in different parts of Scotland without any compensation at all. In the Burgh of Dumfries there were, 20 years ago, 120 licences; now there are only 82 licences. In a few cases, no doubt, licences have been withdrawn by reason of conviction for offences. That, of course, does not enter into the consideration. But the
    1386
    remainder have been extinguished in this manner. It has been the rule of the Bench to refuse renewals wherever the property has changed hands, or wherever the tenant has died, or has removed. There have only been two classes of exceptions to this rule. The first class is that of hotels, not public houses in the proper sense of the word, but houses of, general entertainment; and the second is a case where a widow, for example, or some other near relative has been left, and where there has been some sympathy felt for her, and also where it has has been proved that the house has been exceptionally well conducted. Under these circumstances the licence has been renewed to the survivor. But such has been the operation of this rule or practice of the Bench that we have succeeded in reducing the licences in 20 years by something' over 30 per cent. Of course, I need not assure the Committee that in no single case has any compensation been asked or paid by any human being. What must necessarily be the effect of the clause under discussion in a place like Dumfries? It is very easy to say that you reserve, as you do reserve in the Bill, the power of the Licensing Justices to use all the discretionary authority they have at the present time, but is it not perfectly obvious that the fact of enabling County Councils to buy public houses for the purpose of extinguishing them will set up two methods of extinguishing licences, one the rival of the other? There will be the old method of refusing to renew without compensation, and there will be the other method of buying up the licences with full compensation. Can anybody doubt that when these are alongside of each other, these two different methods, one which appears to be compassionate and kindly, and the other which appears by contrast to be harsh and unfeeling, the sympathy of the public will go in the direction of buying or giving compensation, instead of in the direction of refusing to renew the licence, as has heretofore been the rule. It cannot be otherwise, and when right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench point with exultation to the fact that the legal position is intended to be reserved, they entirely forget the moral effect of a law of this kind. Suppose, for example, they carry their

    1387
    proposition, and give County Councils the power of granting and renewing licences, and at the same time give them the power of buying licences, is it not obvious that the County Councils will practically be disabled from using the most beneficial power of refusing renewal of licences, but will be driven by public opinion into the use of the power of purchase? That is the view of my constituents. A public meeting in Dumfries has condemned the proposals of the Government. Is it a statesmanlike course to force upon Scotland a clause of this character? Hon. Gentlemen opposite know perfectly well that a majority of two to one, perhaps a great deal more than two to one, of the Scotch Members are resisting this Bill. Why is it that in a matter of this kind they insist on ruthlessly using their majority, without taking the trouble to come in and hear what our arguments are? We have been told by the President of the Local Government Board that the Government do not regard this Bill as a final settlement of the matter, that before the introduction of the Bill they received no hint, either from the brewers or the publicans, or any branch of the trade, that any of the provisions of the Bill were wanted, and that a general Bill, dealing with the entire question of compensation, will be introduced before long. Under these circumstances, it requires some ingenuity to understand what can be the motive of the Government in the dogged determination they seem to evince to impose the Bill upon the reluctant Members for Scotland. My belief is that the real reason is not to be found merely in what I may call a feeling of pride, but in the fact that the public house trade, like other trades, is keen enough to scent an advantage. It did not take the trade long to find out that the Bill contained within it a principle which would make it very difficult hereafter to interfere, in any manner, with their trade, and they have, no doubt, put on the Government pressure, pressure of that character which is understood when it comes from keen and strong political supporters. Although it may have been brought in in the cause of temperance, the Bill has now become nothing more than a flagrant job in the interest of the owners of
    1388
    public house prosperity, and I believe that, if the Government do persevere with it, it will prove to be as disastrous to them as it will be injurious to the best interests of the country.
    MR. MARK STEWART:My hon. and learned Friend has pointed out when this Bill passes there will be two methods of putting down public houses, and he maintains that the Local Authority will, no doubt, still exercise their authority, but they will be very unwilling to do so. I contend that they will be more willing to do so than before, because they will not only have the law on their side, but they will have a certain amount of money with which to assist people to get out of their public houses. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman complained that English opinion is continually voting down Scotch opinion. [Cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen who cheer must know that Scotch opinion very often rules down English opinion. If it were not for the Irish and Scotch opinion, I should like to know what would be the position of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Just what, it is.
    MR. MARK STEWART: Just what it is means 150 votes upon a Division, and instead of the Government winning by 4 votes to-night, their majority would have been more like 154. The hon. and learned Gentleman also complained that the Conservative Members were not present to listen to his arguments, but if he looked around him he would have found that the Opposition Benches were comparatively empty.
    MR. R. T. REID: I did not complain that Conservative Members did not listen to what I said, but that they never listened to what any Scotch Member said.
    MR. MARK STEWART: With the exception of a few minutes, when I was called out of the House, I sat through the whole of the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks. Reference has been made to the Petitions presented to the House, but we know very well how Petitions are manufactured. Again, we know how public meetings are called together. People do not care to differ with what is said at meetings, but when a poll takes place things are very

    1389
    different. Besides, all the Petitions are not on one side; only yesterday a Petition from Scotland, signed by between 40,000 and 50,000 people, was presented in favour of the proposals; and I never recollect receiving so many Petitions in favour of any Government measure. It is quite possible that a large number of licences may be done away with by this Bill. It may only be necessary to give some people who are turned out of their public houses, £50 or £100, but the granting of this compensation, or, properly speaking, purchase money, would take the edge off the feeling in the country, that it would be a hard thing to turn men out of their houses without giving them some recompense. It is said that a man gets a licence for nothing, but immediately obtains a large profit thereby. But the man pays for the licence he gets; although he does get his certificate for nothing. He has to pay a heavy duty in order to trade, and if you allow him to trade you sanction his business. Under all the circumstances, I shall oppose this Amendment.
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: There are great differences between Scotland and England and Wales, which, I think, should be pointed out at the earliest opportunity. The first difference is the enormous strength and universality of the feeling on this question in Scotland as expressed not indistinctly by the Divisions in this House. I am not exaggerating when I say that on what was practically the Second Reading Division, a Division far less favourable than that Second Reading Division which we got early in the 1st clause, and still less favourable than that third Second Reading Division which we got this afternoon—I am not exaggerating when I say that even in the most unfavourable of these Divisions, there were, taking the pairs into account, 46 Scotch Members against the Bill to 23 for it. These 23 not only included the devoted adherents of the Government who, from Party motives we can all respect, stuck to the Government in their difficulty, but included several official Members. The hon. Member who who has just spoken says that resolutions have been passed at public meetings, and Petitions have been signed, under misapprehension of the nature of this Bill, but I will
    1390
    venture to say no Scotch Member thinks his countrymen do not understand this question most thoroughly, and also the nature of this monopoly, from which the holders derive large gains each year; from a monopoly not given, as in times past monopolies were supposed to be given, for public service, and for which this Bill will provide compensation by payment of a capital sum. The Scotch people understand this question, and the great mass of the people suffer from the drink traffic. I do not exaggerate when I say the feeling is universal in Scotland among the miss of the people against this Bill; there is a difference of degree in the opinion in Scotland and in England, and, strong as the feeling may be in England, it is stronger in Scotland. There is this distinction, too, which I hope Members will keep in view, that we are in a position of advantage in proposing a diversion of these funds from the purpose proposed in the Bill. When English Members make similar proposals, they are under the disadvantage of proposing the appropriation of money to purposes for which they have to invent the machinery. But we, thanks to the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Dr. Hunter), and the hon. Member for the College Division (Dr. Cameron), have at the moment the machinery for the distribution in excellent working order. We have the machinery for making payment of fees in Scotch schools, and we do not ask now to set up new machinary for public expenditure, but only for more money to be devoted to a purpose of great utility, and by machinery we have now at work. We would have fees abolished, and make education free in every school throughout Scotland, and in every standard, compulsory and non-compulsory alike. I take it, we may all safely vote for this Amendment, which goes against the clause as a whole, and, if we should carry this Amendment, and the Government should go on with the Bill, it would be easy to frame Amendments to enable the whole of the money to be devoted to the payment of fees in elementary schools. But it is quite another matter when this Amendment is passed, and we come to the second Amendment of my hon. Friend. I must own that that Amendment will place many of us in a great difficulty, because the great feeling among Scotch

    1391
    Members is in favour of applying this money to the extinguishing of fees in fee-paying schools, and, therefore, I hope my hon. Friend (Mr. Williamson) will alter his Amendment so as to enable us to take a vote upon that proposal. But the present Amendment is directed to defeating that part of the clause to which we all object—that is to say, to applying this money to buying up public houses. What a preposterous proposal is that now before us! In Scotland there are 15,400 licences to 3,750,000 of people, a proportion of one to every 212 people, very nearly the proportion in England where it is one to every 202 inhabitants. I only call attention to this because it enables us to get at the minimum cost of a public house in Scotland. We know that in England it is, roughly speaking, £2,000, and I assume that in Scotland it is about the same, or say, an average of £2,000, for Scotland is a country at least as rich as England. Now, Glasgow will receive, so far as I can see, an eighth of the sum allotted to Scotland, or £5,000; so, in order to reduce the licensed houses in Glasgow by 10 per cent, we must wait 80 years. But that is not all, because as licences are reduced, by the process admirably explained by my lion, and learned Friend (Mr. Reid) they become gradually, and indeed rapidly in some cases, more valuable. My hon. and learned Friend did not put the case so strongly as he might have done, for the gross earnings of an extinguished public house will become the net gains of the remaining houses; the staff and machinery of the remaining houses remain as they were, and the trade transferred from the bought-up house becomes a net gain added to the existing trade. The hon. Member for Kirkcudbright (Mr. M. Stewart) says the number of licences will be reduced because the men in smaller houses will be willing to take small sums to get out of the business; but, on the contrary, I believe if this Bill passes you will do away with the natural process of putting down public houses on public grounds, which now goes on much faster than some Members seem to think. I am glad to think that the increase of temperance feeling, the increase of public spirit among the wealthier classes, is leading to a public spirited suppression of drink shops by
    1392
    landlords, even when this means a loss to the landlord's income. But now, when you establish the principle that the giving up of a licence should be accompanied by compensation, men will be less willing on public grounds to give up the profit of the trade, and will hold out for compensation. The hon. Member laughs at the idea of public house occupiers profiting by the misconducting of their houses; but I have no doubt that if County Councils use the Bill at all they will use it to put down the worst houses, and in proportion to the evil effect of a house will be the pressure upon a County Council to buy it. I hope every Liberal Member and every Independent Member on the other side will vote with Scotch Members for this Amendment, and after that it will be for Scotch opinion to decide how the fund shall be appropriated.
    MR. SOMERVELL: I will not occupy the time of the Committee at any length in referring to the extraordinary position the right hon. Gentleman has taken up. The Mover of this Amendment asks us to omit these innocent-looking words, with an object in view which he has stated, and the right hon. Gentleman, in supporting the Amendment, appeals to the hon. Member to withdraw the Amendment of which he has given notice, and goes back over well-trodden ground. There was an Amendment moved on the Second Reading stage of the Bill which distinctly brought to issue the questions discussed by the hon. Member for Dumfries and the right hon. Gentleman. We divided on the Second Reading of the Bill on the distinct question whether the money should be divided in the manner provided in this measure or not, and we affirmed the principle in the Bill, and I maintain that it is an abuse of the forms of the House to occupy time in discussing a principle which has already been affirmed by a majority. And what are the arguments used? The hon. and learned Member for Dumfries informs us that public houses in Scotland are worth £20,000,000, and the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Trevelyan), absolutely ignorant as to the value of these houses, but desirous of following-out the logical law of laying down hypothetical premises argues that because in England a public house is

    1393
    worth £2,000, in Scotland they must, because there are fewer of them, he worth a good deal more. This might be an interesting thesis to discuss before a debating society, but I question if it can have any influence upon a Vote in tin's House. We desire not to argue upon hypothetical premises, we desire to be instructed upon the facts of the case. The hon. and learned Member for Dumfries, after laying down the fact that public houses in Scotland are worth £20,000,000, occupied himself for some time, as an English lawyer, in discussing the action "Sharp v. Wakefield," and afterwards told us that public house licences are liable to be taken away without any reason, and, therefore, they could have no value at all.
    MR. R. T. REID: I said nothing of the kind.
    MR. SOMERVELL: We have had an interesting illustration of putting an abstract proposition into concrete terms. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian set the example, and the hon. Member for Dumfries has followed it, both he and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton, having attempted first to lay down an abstract proposition, and, when they came to a concrete idea, contradicted themselves entirely. Much has been said with regard to the feeling of Scotland on this subject, and we have been told that that feeling is entirely in support of hon. Members opposite. I cannot agree with that proposition at all. A large majority of the signatures in Petitions from Scotland are in favour of this Bill as it passed the Second Reading, and in my own case the leading temperance journal in Scotland has recognised that I was elected after definitely stating that I was in favour of the proposals of the Bill, giving this power to County Councils. This is a definite statement by a leader of the Temperance Party. Undoubtedly a great number of Petitions have been presented against the Bill, but the names on these Petitions appear like Falstaff's ragged regiment again and again. I know one small village which has sent up five Petitions signed by the same persons sometimes as inhabitants, sometimes as Members of the Radical Association, as members of the Ladies Association, as members of the Good Templars Lodg'e, and so on. Like a
    1394
    theatrical army, they cross the stage and re-appear again under another banner. I have here a letter addressed to me by one of my constituents, a leading member of the Free Church, and prominent in the temperance cause, and who, until 1886, was a prominent member of the then United Liberal Party in the district. He writes—
    "Being all my days a temperance man, the wire-pullers of this part have been most anxious that I should do something with the Temperance Party in opposition to the Government measure which they represent for the first time creates a vested interest in a licence. Not only would I not promise to do as they advised, but I stated my opinion that the Bill was an honest attempt on the part of the Government to reduce the number of licences, and as a temperance man that was what I wanted. They hold this is a dodge to pay publicans who are dispossessed the full value of their licences. I, on the other hand, take the word of Mr. Goschen and Mr. Ritchie that those who drink spirits and sell them are to be the compensators. I do not approve of putting a tax on the ratepayers to buy out the publicans, but I see no tendency to do this, and therefore those who wish the Temperrnce Party to prosper will accept the Government proposals as a boon."
    [Cries of "Name"] My correspondent is a prominent member of the Temperance Party, and I will hand the letter to any hon. Member who desires to satisfy his curiosity, but I think I had better follow the example of the hon. Member opposite and not make the name public. After these expressions of opinion I do not think hon. Members opposite are entitled to say that temperance feeling in Scotland is unanimous against the Government proposal. We have been informed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian that the opinion of England has changed since the last election. There is, undoubtedly, at the present time a I majority of Members representing Scotland on the other side of the House, and if the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman is correct, for my own part, I am equally entitled to say that those who sit on this side of the House now represent the opinion of the majority of the people of Scotland. Scotch Members opposite have been elected by those who favour local option, anti-vaccination, and all the extreme views of people who place those views before Party or the Empire. But on any broad question the people of Scotland are in accordance with the present policy of Her Majesty's Go-

    1395
    vernment. I deny, therefore, that hon. Members opposite are entitled to say that they represent the people of Scotland. But I do not care whether they represent the majority of the people of Scotland or not. The principle of government in this country is government by Party, and the Party to which I belong is at present in the majority in the United Kingdom, and it is the bounden duty, taking this Parliament as representing the people of the United Kingdom, of the Government of the day to introduce and pass legislation which is in accordance with the views of their supporters who sit behind them. When this fact is realised, whether we have been in the past, or whether we are at the moment, representatives of the majority, when the next appeal comes, our Party will be returned by a considerable majority of the sensible people of Scotland. I must apologise for having detained the Committee so long against my intention. I have taken the opportunity to express my views upon the Bill, views which I venture to say are held by a majority of the people of Scotland, and held almost unanimously by the Party to which I belong. I hope the Committee will support the principle which has been laid down on the Second Reading, and pass into law a Bill which is an honest attempt to deal with several vexed questions, and which, when it becomes law, will be realised to be one of the grate boons bestowed upon the country by Her Majesty's Government.
    MR. ASQUITH: I trust that Scotch Members will not be deterred by the minatory tones and gestures of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down from expressing their opinion fully and freely upon this most important clause. The hon. Member appears to be gifted with a buoyant faith in the future of his Party in Scotland, and it is to be hoped, for the credit of his reputation as apolitical prophet, that his faith is based on more substantial evidence than that which he has brought forward with regard to the opinion of the Temperance Party in that country. He produced a letter from some un-named correspondent, who is prepared to give a blank cheque to the right hon. Gentlemen the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Local Government Board, but we should like to know
    1396
    a little more about the antecedents of this remarkably credulous temperance man. As to the hon. Gentleman's confident statement as to the state of public opinion in Scotland, we challenge the hon. Member, and the Party to which he belongs, to give us an opportunity of testing the feeling of Scotland, and as long as they decline to do so we shall continue to assert our right to be considered as the authentic exponents of public opinion in that country. From the evidence which reaches us we know that the people of Scotland are well nigh unanimous, without distinction of Party, in their opposition to these clauses, and in this House we shall offer the most strenuous and unremitting opposition to them. The history of this Bill and of these, two clauses is a chapter of paradoxes. These clauses have been introduced avowredly to promote the cause of temperance. These clauses are bitterly opposed, by every temperance organisation in Scotland. These are clauses in support of which there are at this moment—so we are informed—Petitions lying for-signature in every gin palace and every public house in Scotland. Her Majesty's Government suppose, at least we must believe so, that they know better than anybody else in the world what will be the effect of their own measure. But I must say it is a curious state of circumstances which obliges them to assume that the Temperance Party on the one hand, and the publicans upon the other, two of the shrewdest, the most-energetic, and most hostile bodies of men to be found in the country, are, at one and the same time, victims of one and the same hallucination. It is possible that Her Majesty's Government may be right, and both the teetotalers and publicans, are wrong. But I venture to think that the probabilities point in the opposite direction. I assert broadly and explicitly, with reference to this clause, that if it passes into the Statute Book, it will constitute for all time the legislative charter of the liquor trade. The matter lies really in a nutshell. Either there is or there is not, according to the law of Scotland, which is the same as the law of England, a vested interest in the renewal of a licence. If there is not, and we believe there is not, then this clause, for the first time, creates it. If there is now no vested interest in the renewal of a

    1397
    licence, then this Bill creates a power which cannot co-exist with the discretionary power of non-renewal. It is too grotesque an assumption almost for the imagination to make, that in one and the same district, at one and the same time, we are to have two public bodies—I say two, though they will, as we all know, be merged into one in a few years—one of which is exercising the power of refusing the renewal of a licence by a stroke of the pen and without payment of a penny of compensation, while the other, side by side with it, is exercising the power of buying up licences with public money. That is a difficulty which cannot be got over. The President of the Local Government Board may propose any number of saving clauses and provisoes; they will not avail him. I have said and thought many hard things of the Liberal Unionist Party, but I confess my imagination did not grasp the fact that they could have reached such a stage of moral liquefaction as to accept the salve to their consciences which is to be found in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Grimsby. For my part, I do not believe that any Town or County Council in Scotland will use these powers. Still, we are bound, for the purpose of the argument, to assume that the clause will be put in force. If it is enforced, then I unhesitatingly assert that the creation of such a power is wholly inconsistent, and will be found to be irreconcilable with the continued exercise of the discretionary power of withdrawal of licences. Lot us look at the other alternative. Suppose there is now, by law, a vested interest in the renewal of licences in some shadowy form or other. Then I assert, avid I challenge contradiction, that this Bill for the first time gives to that interest legislative recognition. We have had some remarkable arguments addressed to us in the course of the Debate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, for instance, believes, as the Attorney General evidently believes, that there is a law in Scotland as in England, giving a vested interest in the renewal of a licence. If he does not believe that, then his arguments are absolutely unmeaning. The Chancellor of the Exchequer laboured this point greatly. I am a great, a respectful admirer of the debating-powers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have witnessed with
    1398
    compassion so fertile and ingenious a dialectician reduced, under stress of the duty of supporting this unhappy Bill to a condition of controversial beggary What are the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this point? He says there is a vested interest by law in the renewal of a licence. Is there any Act of Parliament, or any provision of any Act of Parliament, which creates or recognises such an interest? The Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot find one. Is there any decision of any Court of Law, any dictum of any individual Judge, which countenances the existence of such an interest? The Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot discover anything of the kind. What does he do? He sets to work to scavenge the by-ways of Hansard, and ultimately, after long and painful research, he succeeds in picking out two or three sentences, severed from their context and spoken in a different connection, from speeches made from time to time by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian. The right hon. Gentleman has had many compliments paid to him in his time; but I do not know that he has ever had a greater compliment than the suggestion or assumption of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the brewers and distillers of this country, among the shrewdest, most prudent, and enterprising of our traders, have allowed themselves to invest tens and hundreds of millions of capital, not upon the faith of any legislative enactment or legal decision, but in reliance upon two or three sentences, not even upon sentences but upon two or three phrases, not even upon two or three phrases, but upon a particular interpretation of a particular phrase of one of his speeches. That is the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am bound to say that, as we might have expected from him, after two or three days' reflection he felt bound to array this unhappy measure in a rather less tattered garment. He came down here—and I observe he repeats the same argument in the newspapers to-day—and he told us that this Bill only extended to an analogous case a principle which was habitually acted upon by Local Authorities all over the country. That argument is worthy a moment's attention. Let us see what it comes to. The Local Authority, Municipal Corporation, or Railway Com-

    1399
    pany, when they take property for the purposes of a street improvement or public undertaking, have to buy out the various interests in the land which they take. If a public house is included in the property taken, they must buy the interest of the freeholder in the soil and in the bricks and in the mortar. They must then deal with the tenant or occupier. If the occupier has a lease, they must compensate him for it. But whether he has a lease or not, they dispossess him, and they are obliged to pay him compensation for the injury he actually sustains by being dispossessed. Suppose he could carry on his business in the next street, the promoters would then only have to pay the cost of his removal. But if the business is annexed to the premises, and not to the person or the reputation of the trader, and would be lost if removed, then, whether the business be that of a publican, butcher, baker, or candlestick maker, the person dispossessed is undoubtedly entitled to compensation, based on a certain number of years' purchase of the goodwill of the business. I observe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer says in his letter—
    "Why do not the promoters of the public undertaking wait until the Licensing Session comes round, and then go and oppose the renewal of the publicans' licence?"
    And these are the gentlemen who talk about judicial discretion? A nice conception they must have of judicial discretion if they imagine that the Local Authority, which has just paid compensation to every other tradesman in the street, can go before the Magistrates and have the impudence to ask them to refuse to renew the licence of the publican for no other reason than that it would save the ratepayers a few hundreds of pounds. The suggestion is worthy to rank with that of the President of the Local Government Board—that if a publican refuses to sell to the County Council at a fair price under this Bill, the County Council might go before the Licensing Authority and ask that the licence should not be renewed.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I never said that.
    MR. ASQUITH: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. Such is the solidarity of the Cabinet that I am sure
    1400
    he will not object to my attributing to him by inadvertence an argument used by the Home Secretary. My hon. and learned Friend has dealt with the argument of the Attorney General as to what is called the judicial discretion given to the Magistrates. The term judicial discretion is not a cabalistic formula; it is a simple phrase, easy to understand, and not difficult to define. A judicial discretion is a discretion which can only be exercised subject to two conditions: In the first place, it must not be exercised until an opportunity has been given to the party affected of being heard. In the second place—and this is the only other necessary ingredient that I know of—it must be a discretion exercised with reference to facts and considerations which are material and relevant to the duty which has to be discharged. Suppose Justices should resolve that houses with red signboards should get their licences, while those with blue signboards should be refused, that would be a nonjudicial exercise of their discretion. In 1870, long before the case of "Sharps.v Wakefield" was heard of, Justice Lush, one of the acutest Judges that ever sat on the English Bench, said—
    "The Licensing Acts authorise, and, therefore, by implication, require Justices to govern their discretion in granting or withholding licences, by reference not only to the qualification of the person applying, and the suitableness of the house, but to other considerations also. These considerations must include the nature of the locality, the population, the number of houses already licensed and all other circumstances bearing on the question whether it is fit and proper in the interests of the public, for whose benefit these Acts are passed, that an additional licence should be granted."
    These words were spoken in the case of the grant of a new licence. But they were quoted verbatim by the Court of Appeal in "Sharp v. Wakefield," with the comment that the Justices have precisely the same discretion, neither more nor less, and that they ought to be governed by precisely the same considerations, in deciding as to the renewal of licences. I think that is enough to show that the notion that there is any vested interest whatsoever in the renewal of a licence is a pure invention of the imagination. It is not founded upon any provision of the Statute Law, and it is not supported by any judicial decision. It may be asked, and it is a question that ought

    1401
    carefully to be considered, how, in the absence of legal protection, this vast interest has grown up on such precarious foundations. It is due to two causes. It is due, in the first place, to the laxity of the Licensing Authorities in not enforcing the law. I will not deny that this will be an important consideration when we come to a settlement of the question. But I assert, and I shall have the assent even of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the lax administration of the law cannot possibly give to those who have profited by it a vested interest in the continued neglect in the future by a public authority of its public duty. The second, and, perhaps, equally important factor, in bringing about this state of things is that the Central Authority has exacted a totally inadequate consideration in return for this profitable monopoly. No one can dispute that if we had adopted the Gottenburg system, or if the Legislature had exercised its undoubted power of enormously raising the Licensing Duty, no publican, or brewer, or those who stand behind them would have had the faintest claim to pecuniary compensation. I have never been a member of the extreme Temperance Party; I do not regard alcohol as a poison; nor do I think that publicans ought to be exterminated. I am disposed to think that there is room both for alcohol and for the sellers of alcohol, and for the consumers of alcohol, within the pale of a civilised community. But that is not the question which we have now before us. When the question does arise—and sooner or later it will—I believe everyone who votes against this clause will feel that he has a perfectly free and unfettered hand in considering how far the publican is entitled to claim some measure of indulgence for the lax administration of the law in the past and the loose practices and usages which have prevailed. When that question arises, we shall be perfectly prepared to deal with it. But, meanwhile, we are not going to assent to this Bill, because the effect of it will be that the brewers, publicans, and distillers will hereafter come before us not as suppliants for indulgence, not as petitioners asking as a matter of bounty for an equitable consideration of the circumstances of the past, but as invested for the first time with a legal title and
    1402
    legal status, which it would be confiscation to disregarded.
    MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: Sir, in my humble judgment the reason why the publicans have been allowed to obtain this vested interest is that no business whatever could be conducted in this country if it were liable to be put an end to at the close of 12 months. The business of the publican is just as lawful as any other business. As to whether the Magistrates have discretion or not, it is clear, I think, that by law they have that discretion. It is quite clear also, that, having that discretion, they never exercised it, because they knew perfectly well that to exercise it would simply be to put an end to a lawful business. That being so, and this business having grown up as a vested interest, it is clear that the people of this country would be against any suggestion of putting an end to that business, whether by the discretion of the Magistrates or, Judges. This vested interest having been allowed to grow up; and money having been invested in it, the House of Commons at any rate could not assent to any proposition which would deprive decent and respectable people of their means of livelihood.
    MR. PHILIPPS: The hon. Member opposite found fault with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton for not following the logical law of arguing from a premise. I do not quite understand it. But I may, perhaps, be allowed to point out something the hon. Member did. The hon. Member read a letter from one of his own constituents, or read part of a letter, and when we cried out "name," he offered to show the letter to any Member of the House who had the curiosity to see it. Well, Sir, I had the curiosity to ask to see that letter, but he only offered to let me see a portion of it, and tore off half the letter, which I declined to look at.
    An hon. MEMBER: It was a private letter.
    MR. PHILIPPS: I do not see how you can say a letter was private that

    1403
    was offered to be shown to anyone in the House.
    An hon. MEMBER: There were private portions of it.
    MR. PHILIPPS: At any rate, the offer was made generally. Well, Sir, the hon. Member for Ayr has talked about the abuse of the forms of the House. Having only been here two years, I will not attempt to discuss questions of abuse of the forms of the House with hon. Members of the ripe experience of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ayr. He complained that in some village, the name of which was not given, the people opposed to this Bill had been so frequent in their Petitions, that they had signed them in various capacities; but, so far as I understand his complaint, it was that the men did not sign as women, nor the women as men, nor the children as men or women. But I understand that there was another Petition from North Britain which does not err in any of those respects. The hon. Member also talked about Scotch feeling. If there is one thing I am clear about, it is the feelings of my own constituency, especially the Liberal Unionists in that constituency. Since this Bill was brought in, I have had numerous letters from those Liberal Unionists, saying that, having seen this Bill, they will never again support the Unionist Government. I think the Scotch case ought to be treated separately from that of England, inasmuch as for many years Scotland has enjoyed a separate legislation of its own, namely, Sunday closing; so that there are strong reasons why Scotland should be exempted from the provisions of this Bill. The notion of compensation for licences taken away is entirely repugnant to Scotch feeling, and in Scotland we have a strong precedent in a case wherein licences were taken away without compensation. I allude to the case of the Sheriff's officers and messengers of the Courts of Scotland. These officers are the only persons who could serve writs and make arrests for debts, and there are at least as many of them as there are publicans in Scotland. These officers are licensed, and their licences are granted under very
    1404
    strict conditions; they have to satisfy the Judge as to their character and fitness, and I believe the Judges are not easily satisfied. The licences are only obtained with great difficulty, the licencees having to find two sureties, who give bond for them. This system dated from as far back as the year 1424, and the licences were not for one year only, but, in legal phraseology, ad vitam aut culpam. This is a much stronger case than that of the publicans' licences. But by the Citation Act of 1881, and also owing to imprisonment for debt being abolished at the same time, these people are practically ruined, two-thirds of their business, at least, having been taken away from them. This was done only nine years ago, and they have received no compensation. If the Government have money to spare they ought to give it to those Sheriffs' officers and messengers of the Court rather than to the publicans. We have heard about compensation to "the poor publicans," but it is the rich brewers whom the Government have in their eye. Suppose the Bill leads to the lessening of licences by 5 per cent., is there any compensation in the Bill for the barmaids, the pot-boys, and publicans' servants who will be thrown out of work? The pretence of the "poor publicans" is absolutely ridiculous, and will impose only upon those who do not know better. If there is anything which the Government care about, it is making property secure. There is certainly less reason for compensating the publicans of Scotland than anywhere else, because, in the Licensing Court of Scotland, the landlord of licensed premises has no locus standi; the Court will not listen to him. In conclusion, I can only express my agreement with the Mover of this Amendment, that, instead of money being given to compensate rich publicans and brewers, it may be applied in the relief of school rates for the benefit of the poorer people of Scotland. Compensation to the publicans is a matter which might well be left to the Scotch people to settle for themselves at some future day, through their own Representatives. We want to leave this Licensing Question over to be settled by the County Councils, and I can assure the House that, whatever the voice of England may be on this

    1405
    question, the voice of Scotland is practically unanimous against those proposals.
    MR. SINCLAIR&c.): The discussion has hitherto not proceeded upon the line of discussing the Amendment before the Committee. If I understand it aright, the effect of passing the Amendment would be to destroy the clause, and the amount for police superannuation and the £40,000 for educational purposes would be gone ["No!"] I should be unable to vote for the Amendment if that would be the effect of it. On the other hand, the position of Scotland with respect to licences and their extinction is very different from that of England or Ireland. In Ireland, I believe, a legal right exists to have a 12 months' licence renewed. In England there may be an equitable fight to have such a licence renewed for 12 months' longer; but it has not yet been decided whether that legal right amounts to a vested interest. But in Scotland the equitable right is nonexistent, or, if it exists at all, is much weaker than in England. Therefore, there is a very strong feeling in Scotland against tills proposal. How that feeling had grown up is another question; but a very large part of it, I believe, has arisen from the fact that the state of the case, as put in the Bill, has not been fairly represented. From the letters I have received from various constituents I find that the impression has been sown broadcast over the land that it is proposed to create a vested interest where no vested interest exists. Therefore it is material to consider whether a vested interest is created by the Bill. The Government have made a distinct statement that no change is made in the law, and that they are willing to accept the Amendment put on the Paper by the right hon. Member for Grimsby. If that Amendment does not make the matter clear, I hope the Government will go further. For myself I cannot vote for this Amendment, because it would not merely affect the compensation proposals of the Government, but the superannuation of the police. ["No, no!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: As this appears to be a point in dispute, I must say that the effect of the Amendment before the Committee would be to destroy the apportionment altogether, both as regards the compensation to publicans and the police superannuation.
    MR. R. T. REID: May I ask, as a point of order, whether, if this Amendment be passed, it would be competent to the Committee to agree to the succeeding Amendments?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I think not.
    MR. C. S. PARKER: The object of the Amendment is to provide money not only for fishery harbours nock in, but also for the relief of school foes.
    MR. R. T. REID: May I ask, as a point of order, whether, instead of adopting the language of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock in his Amendment, other language embodying his objects might be adopted?
    MR. CRAWFORD: Supposing the Amendment is lost, would the various Amendments on the Paper qualifying this sub-section still be in order?
    THE CHAIRMAN: If the Amendment is lost, all the Amendments to this subsection would still be retained.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I am satisfied by your ruling that I am right in interpreting the effect of the Amendment as I have already done. Therefore the Scotch Members will doubtless re-consider their position and decline to vote for this Amendment, as destructive of the grants for superannuation and education. For my own part, I am unable to vote for the Amendment, although I cannot vote for the application of this £50,000 for the compensation of publicans.
    THE CHAIRMAN: In answer to the hon. Member for Dumfries, I may say that it would not be competent for the Committee to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Armagh in substance or in form.
    MR. J. C. BOLTON: I desire, Sir, to draw attention to a few facts connected with this licensing

    1407
    question. I would remind the Committee that legislation for Scotland respecting the control and management of the liquor traffic has hitherto proceeded on different lines from those adopted in England; for instance, in Scotland we have had Sunday closing for upwards of 40 years, while in England there is no Sunday closing at all. Moreover, the year before last, a section of Scotch Members, headed by the Member for the College Division of Glasgow, obtained for the Licensing Authority of Scotland power to sanction a proposal for closing the public houses at an earlier hour. And that proposal has been adopted in Scotland. Moreover, Scotland has been dealt with in a different mariner from England in respect of grants in aid, only a year ago, we were allowed in Scotland to devote for educational purposes a large portion of the advance made from the Probate Duty, whereas in England that advance can only be applied to the reduction of the poor's rate. The assent of this House to such an application of the fund in Scotland was given as a concession to the demand of the Scotch Representatives on behalf of the population of Scotland generally. Why should not a similar course be taken on this occasion? The Scotch people are practically unanimous in their objection to any portion of this money being applied to public house compensation. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, who recently in no uncertain terms expressed his anxiety at all times to defer to public opinion, has now an opportunity of proving the sincerity of that statement. The fact that only 23 Scotch Members are in favour of the Government proposals, while 46 are opposed to them, shows very clearly that public opinion in Scotland, as represented in this House, is as two to one against the Government; and I think if we could appeal to the Scotch people on the subject, we should find that the proportion would be not two to one, but four to one against these proposals. What harm, I ask, could be done to anyone outside Scot-
    1408
    land if in this matter the Government adopted the same course as was taken on the Local Government Bill? We only ask that money which we ourselves have contributed should be devoted to such purposes as we ourselves prefer, we abhor—and I am sure the word is not too strong—we abhor and detest the idea of devoting money raised from the Scotch taxpayers to the compensation of publicans. I confess that something may be said in favour of the Government proposal with regard to England, because the fact that a majority of the English Representatives support the Government is some justification for their action in regard to England. A good deal has been said about Petitions from Scotland. I have only been able to find nine Scotch Petitions in favour of this measure, while there have been hundreds presented against it. In Glasgow, with a population of 500,000, to which, if you add the suburbs, which are as much a part of Glasgow as Westminster is a part of London, the number will be increased to 800,000, only 1,800 signatures could be obtained in favour of this Bill; and it has been pointed out by the Petitions Committee that a great many of the signatures appear to have been written in one hand. A great deal has been said in respect to the discretion exercised by the Magistrates in regard to the transfer and renewal of licences. I have been a Magistrate in Scotland for about 40 years, and have never known any difficulty arising from the action of the Magistrates in these matters. Whenever it has seemed desirable to reduce the number of public houses, we have done so without hesitation, and we have refused frequently the transfer of a licence from one owner to another, even when the transfer of the house has already taken place. And, notwithstanding all this, I have never heard any mention of a demand for compensation until recent times. If, however, this Bill should pass, I am confident that it will absolutely confer on all licensed holders in all cases the right to compensation. Even if not a legal right, you will confer a moral right that no Licensing Bench will set aside. Under these circumstances, I feel bound to oppose the clause.
    MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: Notwithstanding the observation of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Mr. W. P. Sinclair), that as the admission of these words would destroy the clause altogether he would not engage to vote for them, I am of opinion that the desirableness of destroying the clause is so great that it will be proper to vote for the Amendment. Hon. Members opposite who, having spoken this evening, have now left their places, twitted us with the way in which, we are continuing the Debate. I think we on our side are quite justified in feeling amazement at the passionate way in which the Government are pressing forward this clause in the Bill. They are doing so not only against their political opponents, but against the wishes of their own supporters. We have indications that even Party ties are very severely strained under the present state of things. We have seen to-night, for example, that hon. Gentlemen opposite think nothing of leaving for Ascot unpaired, although the result has been a very narrow escape for their own Party. I believe there are many hon. Members on the other side of the House who are undesirous that their names should appear in the Division List in favour of the different clauses of this Bill, especially now that that which was a Compensation Bill has been turned into a Compensation by Closure Bill. The only Division which has not been effected by means of the Closure has been that of this evening. To-day the Papers circulated with the Votes were double the usual bulk, in consequence of their containing the list of Petitions received against the Bill. I find that the number of Petitions against compensation is 2,228, and that the signatures number 62,500, whilst the Petitions in favour of compensation number nine, and there are 2,700 signatures. The Unionist Press, hitherto the strongest supporters of the Government, are not with them with regard to the present Bill. The leading paper in my own constituency, namely, the Elgin Courant and Courier,
    1410
    which, during my election last October, strongly supported my Liberal Unionist opponent and opposed me, spoke a few days ago of the Compensation Clauses as "the sting in the Bill." How did the Government explain their persistency? We have been told that the publicans and the brewers have not been pressing them. The President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) said before this Committee—
    "The Government has never received, either from the publicans or the brewers, the slightest hint that any proposals such as those brought forward by the Government, were desired by their trade."
    The Government must admit that the country is not generally pressing them, but I observe that the recognised leading organ of the liquor trade, the Morning Advertiser, does not tell the same tale as the Government. In a leading article on the 19th of last month that newspaper, speaking of the Amendment placed on the Paper by the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord R. Churchill), said the acceptance of his Amendment—
    "Would be a distinct breach of faith with the trade who, on the understanding that the principles of the Licensing Bill would not be substantially altered, have refrained from offering opposition."
    Of course, I do not for a moment allege-that the President of the Local Government Board knowingly deceived the House, but he must remember there may have been communications passing of which he was not aware. There are very many Tory managers who know the Metropolis thoroughly, and they know full well that it was the publicans' influence that turned the scale in London in 1885 and gave five-sixths of the representation of the Metropolis to the Tory Party. The fact is, the present Government, for the first time perhaps in the history of this country, is endeavouring to turn this Parliamentary legislative machine into a huge electioneering-agency. They depend upon three classes—the parsons, the landlords, and the publicans. They want the parsons to be canvassers for their Party, and so they bring in a Tithes Bill. They want the landlords to canvass for them, and they bring in a Land Purchase Bill. They

    1411
    want the publicans to canvass for them, and they bring in this present measure. There is no doubt this clause represents a desire to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. The framers of the Bill thought, no doubt with truth, that the great increase in the Drink Bill, as shown by the last Budget, would alarm the temperance people. They therefore determined to give them a sop by raising the tax on drink. The publicans, however, said "No; to increase the tax on liquor is to damage our profits." The Government replied, "We will not damage your profits, because, out of every is we raise, we will put 4d. into your private pocket." "Done with you," says the publican; "we will agree to that, and we will offer no opposition to the raising of the tax on drink." I hope the Government will give the Committee some explanation as to whether there is any foundation for the statement that an understanding of this kind was arrived at. I want to know how it is the publicans have acquired such a power in the Councils of the Government. The cause, I think, is to be found in the enormous extension of the system of tied houses.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I do not see how that applies to this Amendment.
    MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: Perhaps I should have explained my reason for bringing on this subject. I am going to show the magnitude of the income of the publican and the component parts of which it is made up, in order to prove that that income is the very last thing in the world which the nation should compensate out of the public taxes. We may suppose that a house costs £6,000 in the public house market. A publican, especially in London——
    THE CHAIRMAN: Obviously the hon. Member is still more out of order. He is arguing the question with reference to London. This clause applies to Scotland.
    MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: Well, I was not laying any stress upon that, but I am bound to say my figures relate to London. Am I in order in pointing out how the
    1412
    publican gets his political power by means of his income? It comes about in this way. A brewer lends him £4,500 and the man himself provides £1,500. The result is that the publican becomes absolutely dependent upon the value of his licence for every penny of the £1,500 provided by him out of his small private fortune. It is obvious that the mortgagee—the brewer—will not even get his £4,500 in the event of the extinction of the licence, while the entire £1,500 of the publican will be lost. The publican will, therefore, vote, of course, for the authority, who will tell him that he will get compensation and that his £1,500 will be saved. That is the reason I had for bringing in the question of the income of the publican. I would venture to call the attention of the Government to the fact that while they assert that their whole motive in this matter is the promotion of the cause of temperance—or, in other words, that they will not hesitate to do a thing which may be more or less detrimental to the drink traffic—the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) is much more candid. At Walsall a short time ago he used these words—
    "Up to now this great class"
    —the publicans and brewers—
    "have successfully intimidated Governments and successfully intimidated Members of Parliament. In fact they have directly overthrown two Governments, and I do not blame the Government for being a little timid of meddling with them."
    That, at all events, is a thoroughly honest statement of the case. As to the expenditure which must be eventually thrown on the country for the purchase of licences, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow has computed the present marketable value of public houses at £250,000,000, and he has asserted that this sum will become much greater by the passage of this clause. I entirely agree with him, and am certain that the amount may be put at £300,000,000 by the time the Bill passes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer disputed these figures in toto, but the arguments he used against them were wonderfully

    1413
    weak. He read out a list of brewing firms whose shares he said had not risen in value since the month of April. But I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman as a political economist must know that that is an unsound argument. He must know that no one can hypothecate a single £5 note to the benefit of any particular industry or occupation without the reversionary value of that £5 note being felt, in raising the value of the property, if only by a single penny piece. All such adventitious aids in money matters are discounted as soon as money is placed at the disposal of the particular industry or occupation. There is better evidence than the figures which the right hon. Gentleman read out to show that brewery shares are not increasing in value. In Breweries and Distilleries, a paper which was quoted at the commencement of this Debate, it was stated on the 14th of this month—
    "Breweries are booming again just now, and last Saturday no fewer than four new issues were made."
    Then they go on to say that a sum of some £900,000 which is being raised—
    "Will, no doubt, be used in increasing the number of tied houses, the advantage and wisdom of which has been seen in the enormous increase of trade for the last 12 months."
    At the last meeting of the firm of Allsopps, the Committee of Investigation laid on the Table a Report, in which they said that—
    "The policy of tying houses should be continued and increased, and they recommended that money should be raised for that purpose."
    The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, speaking on the English Clause, was at a loss to know how the setting aside of this money for the purpose of extinguishing licences could possibly have the effect of encouraging the consumption of drink. His words were very strong, indeed, on that subject. He said—
    "I deeply regret that the Government should be at issue with any people whom they desire to conciliate. Speaking honestly and sincerely, I cannot conceive on what ground and with what object the so-called Temperance Party are opposing the Government in so hitter and hostile a manner."
    I think I can give the hon. Member some
    1414
    information in this matter. We think that the application of this money in the manner proposed will make the reduction of public houses so difficult as to be practically impossible, because it could only be done by fining the localities to be benefitted. In a town with 400 public houses, in all probability, if the people got the licensing into their own hands they would reduce the number to 300. That can and will very shortly be done without this Bill; but we say that the reduction which would be effected by the Bill would be only to 390 or 399. That is why we say the passing of the Bill will have no effect in decreasing the consumption of drink. I do not think the President of the Local Government Board can suppose that the publicans are not possessed of any desire for self preservation. Self immolation is at no time a pleasant thing, and the right hon. Gentleman will not expect it from any ordinary human being—not even from a publican If it were otherwise, there would be no truth in the Persian proverb, with which my residence in the East has made me familiar, namely, that in a Council of Lions we do not expect an ordinance to be passed forbidding the having of lamb for breakfast. I wish to show shy compensation is un-just and unnecessary, and for that purpose I want the Committee to inquire how the enormous value of £250,000,000 arises. There are three reasons, all of a strictly financial character, against compensation being considered a, thing which could be justly given for the termination of this monopoly. In the first place, the whole value is created not by the operation of trade or industry, but by a sort of triple monopoly. There are three sets of unearned increment. The first is due to the fact that liquor is an enormously highly taxed and consequently high-priced article. If the Committee will take any very expensive articles, such as diamonds, they will see that the face of an enormous money capital being required to deal in an article has in itself the effect of throwing the trade into the hands of capitalists, pure and simple, and the consequence is that the limited class who conduct the trade are able to charge the public higher prices than they could otherwise do. Of course, the high price of liquor

    1415
    is further increased by the fact of a licence being required for a public house. And it is, again, still further increased by the monopoly of the tied houses. I may, perhaps, be allowed to illustrate my point by referring to another article which is also enormously taxed, and which becomes in consequence enormously valuable. I allude to salt in India——
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I have endeavoured to follow the hon. Member's arguments and have failed to see their application. The illustration does not add to their clearness.
    MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I will not pursue the argument, but perhaps I may be allowed to state the result. The result is that when we tax salt 2,000 per cent, we throw it into the hands of bankers and capitalists, and whilst they pay the revenue £7,000,000 a year in taxation it is proved by Official Returns that they mulct the people of India no less than £28,000,000 for the article they sell. I hold that the tax on spirits has exactly the same effect. The trade is thrown into the hands of capitalists, who by combining against the consumers are able to realise an immense percentage of profit annually. Between 30 and 40 years ago, when the tax on Scotch Whisky was only a third of what it is now, and the tax on Irish whisky only a fourth, there were none of these enormous values of public houses, and none of these enormous systems of tied houses, nor were such vast fortunes made by brewers and distillers. Things have now altered. The trade has been thrown into the hands of capitalists who are much more able to combine against the public than were their predecessors. The cost of good blended malt whisky at the distillery at this moment is only 3s. a gallon. Let me add, as an average over England, 1s. a gallon for carriage, and the tax of 10s. a gallon. This brings the cost up to 14s. a gallon. Unadulterated it could be sold at the
    1416
    present rate of 21s. a gallon, and produce a profit of 33 per cent, to the publican. This, therefore is the first unearned increment. It appears from a recent trial in Edinburgh that it is the custom of the trade to add water, so as to raise the 33 per cent, profit to 66 per cent. profit on every gallon of whisky sold. In other words, the actual practice of the liquor trade is that if a poor man pays 6d. for a certain adulterated mixture, 2¼d. of the 6d. goes to the Exchequer, and 3¼d. to the publican, in the form of profit, while the poor man only gets a halfpenny worth of whisky for his 6d. The same thing occurs with regard to beer. The public pays 2s. 8d. for a gallon of beer, which, with the tax included, costs only 10d. Perhaps gentlemen opposite may say the law could stop and prohibit all this adulteration. The law, however, is not enforceable, simply because the enormous gains realised by this fraud are such a temptation to the publican as to make him defy all the penalties which the law can place upon him. Under these circumstances, it is not in the least wonderful that the market price of public houses should have gone up to the enormous figure of £250,000,000 or £300,000,000. But it is monstrous that when this is the state of facts, we should be asked to allow the publican to capitalise his enormous and, in many respects, illicit gains, and then go to the Public Treasury and take away at one haul the whole of the capitalised value of the gigantic yearly income out of which he has been able thus to cheat the public I say that the large profits realised by public houses constitute of themselves the compensation for which the publican willingly runs the undoubtedly considerable risk of having his licence withdrawn. I can further illustrate this point by mentioning a monopoly within a monopoly existing in the drink trade. Messrs. Spiers and Pond have a very lucrative monopoly within a monopoly. They have the monopoly of selling drink at certain railway stations, and they take advantage of it to charge the public double the price, in many cases, for which they can get the same thing at the public house next door. If anyone here has ever gone into one of their bars on

    1417
    the Underground Railway, and asked for a glass of sherry he will have noticed that he has had to pay double the usual price, or else he gets a glass half the usual size. I want to ask the Government whether, if the Railway Company put a stop to this monopoly, Messrs. Spiers and Pond would be entitled to demand from the company the capitalised value of their business?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That has no bearing whatever on the question.
    MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I will not pursue the subject further. In fact, my illustration was at an end. My general point is that the income derived from this monopoly, whether the monopoly be terminable in one year or five, is in itself the compensation which the monopolist expects, and that he is not entitled to ask for the capitalised value of that income if his monopoly be withdrawn. (8.49.)
    MR. M'LAGAN: I am quite willing to allow the Government the credit of an honest attempt on behalf of temperance, by reducing the amount of drunkenness, but we want an actual reduction in the number of licensed houses, and the plan of the Government will simply check the reduction which is now going on. True, increase in the price of alcoholic liquors reduces consumption, and this reduction has followed increase in duty; but then, again, consumption follows the rise and fall of wages. We want, I say, a reduction in the number of public houses, and I maintain we are able to accomplish this more rapidly by the present system in Scotland than we shall be able to do under the method contemplated by the Government. In the first place, the amount placed at the disposal of County Councils is inadequate for the purchase of many houses, and many years must elapse before any sensible reduction can be effected by this means. Then, as you reduce the number of houses you will increase the reluctance of the remaining proprietors to give up their trade, and
    1418
    the compensation demanded will rise as houses are diminished in number, the funds of the County Councils becoming in proportion more inadequate. Call it compensation or purchase the thing is the same, public money passes into the hands of licence holders. An hon. Baronet opposite has assured the Committee that he would vote against compensation, but he supports the Bill; but he must admit that with the passing of the Bill publicans will have a higher vantage ground, and will appeal to Parliamentary recognition of the value of their licences as an addition to their claim for compensation. It is far from my wish to act unjustly toward licence holders; but I bear in mind the fact that licences are not permanently granted, and each year the holder of the privilege or monopoly makes a large profit over the expenses of his business within that period. I do not think there is much sympathy to be excited for those who, in the public welfare, are required to give up a licence' to which they have no special claim. With the growth of temperance opinions in this city and elsewhere we see a large increase in the number of coffee houses, a trade in which profits are large, and a licence holder, being deprived of his licence, can carry on the business of a refreshment house with profit to himself and advantage to his customers. I object to the proposals in the Bill for several reasons. They will perpetuate the system of licensed houses in the country which, by the voice of the people, is being gradually done away with. In the train of evils following the public house system are poverty, crime, and consequent increase in rates. I could mention places in Scotland where the withdrawal of licences has led directly to the fall of police and poor rates. I object to the Bill as an obstacle to the progress of the temperance movement. Public opinion in Scotland is far in advance of public opinion in England on this subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Bolton) has shown this, and I need not go over the same ground. There is no doubt of the fact, and if you want to put down public houses, you have only to put power into the hands of the people and they will make short work of it. A plébiscite has been taken in a hundred

    1419
    towns and villages in Scotland, and the result has been an expression of opinion in the population of 12 to 1 in favour of putting down licensed public houses and giving the authority for this to the people themselves. The Bill is an obstacle and a difficulty in the path the people desire to pursue; it maintains a system disastrous to the country and ruinous in its tendencies. When we come to the next Amendment we shall prove that there are other objects to which we can more usefully apply the funds at our disposal. I intend to do everything in my power to oppose this Bill, and I believe that since the passing of the Reform Bill there has not been so much excitement in Scotland against any measure as exists against this Bill.
    MR. J. WILSON: I very much sympathise with what has beer, said by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgowshire. No one who listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he brought in his Budget would have supposed that the right hon. Gentleman had anything else than a pious horror at the amount of the evil entailed on the country by the enormous amount of money placed at his disposal through the drink traffic, and that the difficulty was how to get rid of the evils of intemperance. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, in one of his speeches, said he was surprised at the opposition of the Temperance Party to these proposals of the Government to reduce the number of licences. Why, Sir, the Temperance Party have been resisting and protesting in almost every Licensing Court throughout the country, for half a century, against any increase in the number of licences. We cannot blame the Temperance Party for having no sympathy with the Government on this occasion, because this Bill is seeking to give the trade a vested interest by a process of compensation for licences which it was never held to be entitled to in the past. We do not object to anything in the Bill except the compensation clauses. We should welcome
    1420
    the Bill if the Government could see fib to alter, so far as Scotland is concerned, the destination of the money intended to be applied to the buying up of licences. A few evenings ago the President of the Local Government Board spoke of the floor of the House being inundated with Petitions and telegrams against the Bill. Ho said that the telegrams all came from the same source. They do, and the source is the Temperance Party in Scotland, and if the Government persist in pressing their proposals they will have to reckon with no mean power so far as the Scotch constituencies are concerned. A right hon. Gentleman spoke to-night of the strong feeling in Scotland on this matter. The feeling in Scotland is much stronger than in England, and my right hon. Friend desired to know how it was that the people of Scotland were so much against the Government proposals. Now, Sir, as a temperance reformer of many years' experience, I may say that the public feeling and sentiments in Scotland is largely due to the efforts of the United Temperance Party in the country. We hear hon. Members opposite speaking of the Petitions sent to them in favour of this Bill, and the President of the Board of Trade has, on more than one occasion, referred to the letters he has had, but I will undertake to say that, so far as Scotland is concerned, the Petitions received by Scotch Members have been overwhelmingly against the proposals of the Government, and as to mass meetings, I think that after what has-been said by my right hon. Friend with reference to the meeting at Bridgeton, little need be added. On a recent occasion the publicans made an attempt to hold an open-air meeting in Glasgow, and at that meeting an Amendment was proposed by the Temperance Party, and carried over the heads of those who had convened the gathering. I think it is a fact that in no Parliament have so many Petitions from so many interests throughout the country been presented against any Bill as there have been against this. In a speech which he delivered to-night, the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs said he felt sure that if the opinion of the people of Scotland could be ascertained, and if an election took place, there would be returned to this House a large

    1421
    majority of Members in favour of the proposals of the Government. I do not think that Members on this side of the House would shrink from such a test; indeed, they would deem the battleground well chosen. Whatever might be the result in Ayr Burghs, I believe that throughout the length and breadth of Scotland there would be such a unanimous expression of opinion as would startle the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Bill. The hon. Member, in speaking of a meeting of the Temperance Party that was held in Ayr, cited a statement by one of the members of the Scotch Temperance League, and stated that that body had stultified itself in reference to the question of petitioning against this measure by having returned a right hon. Member to Parliament as their Member. But at a large meeting held in Ayr, last week—called by the two Political Parties, so far as the temperance community is concerned, and held in the largest hall in the town—the rev. Mr. Duncan, an Established Church minister, proposed a resolution to the effect that the meeting protested against the proposals of the Government in the Local Taxation (Duties) Bill for extinguishing existing licences by purchase, as that proposal would practically create a vested interest in licences to which no claim could be established either in law or in equity. In the course of his speech, the mover of that resolution said he was a supporter of the Government at the last election in the Burghs; but if another election occurred upon these proposals he would unhesitatingly vote against them. The motion was seconded by one of the Town Councillors in Ayr, and was supported by Mr. Johnston, a Liberal Unionist, who said—
    "He had been a supporter of the present Government, and felt it was unfair, after having helped the Government to their present position, that they should use their power and their majority for this purpose and saddle remorselessly this injustice on the country. Lord Hartington, whom he regarded as his leader, knew now, that if the measure were forced through the House, as the Government proposed to force it, it would cause a great strain on their allegiance, and as a temperance reformer and a minister of the Gospel he
    1422
    should feel it his duty to use all his power to turn out the Government."
    Now this occurred at a large public meeting in Ayr. The other day we had in the Lobby of the House the Lord Provost of Glasgow, and I presume that his appearance was indicative of his having come to warn the Government against persisting with this measure. The Lord Provost of Glasgow is a Liberal Unionist, and I understand that at the present moment there is a motion before the Town Council of Glasgow protesting against this measure. We have seen from the public prints that many of the Municipal Authorities throughout Scotland have been protesting against these proposals, and how the Government can, in the face of this opposition, persist in going on with them I really cannot understand. We are told that these proposals of the Government will not interfere with the Licensing Authorities—that they will not interfere with the powers at present possessed by the Justices of the Peace in counties and Magistrates in burghs. We know, that at the present time every new licence that is granted is understood to be granted in the public interest and the public good, and that Magistrates when they find a licence has been granted, and that it has not turned out for the public good, have had the power—and have exercised it, too—of refusing a renewal at the next Licensing Session. As a Justice of the Peace, I myself have had no hesitation in withdrawing licences when I have come to the conclusion that they are not required in the public interest. I would remind the House that Scotland in the past has been exceptionally treated in this matter of licences. The hours during which houses have been allowed to be open have been shortened; Sunday opening has been stopped; and I venture to think that if the Government, instead of bringing in this Bill, had proposed one to further shorten the hours of trading, they would have materially reduced the consumption of liquor, and have benefited immensely the moral tone of great masses of the people. Every one knows it is the last two or three hours of the night in which most drunkenness occurs.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I think the hon. Member is wander-

    1423
    ing from the subject of the Amendment.
    MR. J. WILSON: I was bringing to the recollection of the Committee the fact that in the year 1853, when a Conservative Government was in power—and I think this is particularly germane to the subject I have in hand—in the month of August in that year, Parliament resolved, by Act of Parliament, to prohibit Justices of the Peace in counties and Magistrates in burghs from granting licences to blacksmiths, taxmen, and tollkeepers all over the country of Scotland. We know that up to that time these people had been licensed, but in 1853 these licences were abolished, and without a farthing being paid as compensation. Hundreds of these licences were taken away. This precedent goes a long way in support of our contention that there is no vested interest in licences. I feel satisfied that if this matter is decided by the majority of the Members from Scotland, instead of money being given to the publicans it will be devoted to much better and much higher purposes—the purpose of educating the youth of the nation, both in elementary and in higher schools, and if it were so devoted, it would prove a blessing to the country; and it would be much better than giving it away to people who have already enriched themselves at the public expense, and at the expense of the demoralisation of the community.
    MR. DUFF: I think we have reasonably complained that, so far, we have had no indication from the Treasury Bench of what they intend to do in regard to this Amendment, although the Debate has been going on for three-and-a-half hours.
    MR. RITCHIE: I understand that the Amendment is to be withdrawn.
    MR. DUFF: I have no information to that: effect. I think my hon. Friend is perfectly prepared to go on with it, and I certainly am prepared to support it.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The present Amendment, if carried, will preclude the possibility of dealing with all subsequent Amendments appropriating the money.
    MR. DUFF: I was not aware that this Amendment before the Committee, which involves very important questions, would have that effect.
    MR. RITCHIE: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not wish to misrepresent the action of the Government in this matter. I understood that, in consequence of the ruling of the Chair, as to the effect which the carrying of the Amendment would have, an intimation had been received by the Solicitor General that an appeal would be made to the Mover to withdraw it, so that discussion might more properly take place upon the section to which the arguments of hon. Members most properly apply.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN&c.): Perhaps I may be allowed to say that, although I have had no intimation of that sort, still a good many of us are of opinion that this Debate, although it has been a forcible expression of opinion, is going somewhat upon a side issue. The Amendment of my hon. Friend has been moved with a view to his recommending to the Committee, at a subsequent stage, certain modes of disposing of this money. I am not sure that in the prominence which he gave to these particular modes I should altogether agree with him, and I think that some of my hon. Friends are in the same position; but after the ruling which you have given from the Chair to the effect that this Amendment, if carried, will involve the abandonment of the whole of the scheme of the Government, including the proposal that a certain amount of money should be allotted to the superannuation of the police, I think that the question becomes complicated to such an extent that it perhaps would be better, as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, if this Amendment were withdrawn. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree to adopt that course in order that we may raise this point of the buying up of licences at a different part of the clause, where it can be more effectively discussed. I may say frankly that the object of the Scotch Members with whose views I am acquainted is to bring prominently before the House the objections to the buying up of licences, and to explain to

    1425
    the House the glaring contrast between the purpose to which it is now proposed to devote this money, and the purposes to which it might reasonably be applied. I have a considerable amount of sympathy with my hon. Friend, who is anxious to obtain some of the money for the especial purpose of creating harbours. I can quite understand his being anxious to do that; and I think we shall simplify the position if he allows this Amendment to be withdrawn, in order that we may by-and-by be able to place before the House the alternatives which we propose for the distribution of the money.
    MR. S. WILLIAMSON: My object in moving this Amendment was to strengthen the opposition to the proposals of the Government by showing that there were great national purposes besides police superannuation, and besides the payment of school fees, to which this money might reasonably be applied, and, in bringing so prominently before the House the question of Fishery Harbours, I think I was able to show a good purpose to which this money might be applied, and I was able especially to point out the claims of the fishing industry. Now, Sir, after your ruling; which I did not hear, but the purport of which has been communicated to me, I, of course, will withdraw the Amendment. I still think, however, that if the Amendment had been carried, progress might have been reported, and we might have come to some arrangement for the distribution of this money, giving, say, £60,000 for education, £30,000 for fishing harbours, and £40,000 for police superannuation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. HUNTER: The first sub-section of the clause provides that the sum of £40,000 shall be applied to the purposes of police superannuation in Scotland, and I beg to move that these words be omitted. I do it for the purpose of endeavouring to ascertain from the Government what it is they really mean, because Scotland, in regard to police superannuation, differs
    1426
    altogether from England. In England there has been, by Act of Parliament, a system of police superannuation provided for all boroughs and counties, and it has been in operation for a great many years. But in Scotland we stand in this position, that there are no superannuation funds in Scotland, except in two or three small localities. While, therefore, in the case of England, the Government propose the application of this money to a known purpose they are, in the case of Scotland, asking the Committee to agree to the application of the large sum, of £40,000 a year to a purpose which, at the present moment, is entirely unknown. It has been stated that the Government are preparing a Bill dealing with the question of superannuation, but that Bill has not been brought before the House, and, therefore, in this matter we are in the extraordinary position that we are asked to vote out of this sum of £120,000, no less than £40,000 a year for a purpose the exact nature and details of which are entirely unknown to the House and to the Committee. Certainly the Committee ought not to agree to passing this clause until we have had some distinct information from the Government as to the nature of the purpose to which it is to be applied. I make those observations in no spirit of hostility to the object which the Government have in view, namely, the establishment of a Superanuation Fund for the police in Scotland. I, for one, should be disposed to give a satisfactory scheme favourable and kindly consideration. But the difficulty we are now in is that we are asked to vote this money without knowing in any way whatever the scheme which the Government propose. Therefore, although favourable to the purpose of the superannuation of the police, we do not know how that purpose will be carried out or whether it will meet with the approval of the people of Scotland, or of the police, or of the Members of this House. It seems to me absolutely necessary at this stage that we should be in possession of the views of the Government. I look upon the superannuation of the police only as part of a larger scheme of superannuation, under which, by means of insurance, aged working men would be

    1427
    superannuated, and not merely policemen. If it had been possible for a private Member to have brought this larger question before the House. I should have done so, but the time of private Members has now been taken away. I hope, if the Ballot is favourable next year, to bring before the House a scheme of insurance by which all men in Scotland, and not policemen alone, may be able to provide for old age. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Scotland ought to inform the House what is the scheme of police superannuation which the Government propose.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 5, to leave out Sub section (i).—(Mr. Hunter.)
    Question proposed, "That Sub-section (i.) stand part of the Clause."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. M. T. STORMONTH DARLING,): The hon. and learned Member has stated his views temperately. He is quite right in saying that in Scotland there is no scheme of police superannuation. The boroughs and counties have power to provide for the infirmities of aged policemen by payment of a lump sum in proportion to the pay. But there is no scheme of superannuation except in the Borough of Greenock under a Local Act. In Scotland, I believe, there is as great need of police superannuation as in England. Apart from considerations of justice, the figures which are before me certainly show that many of the police in Scotland are beyond the age when they can efficiently discharge their duty. I have no doubt there is a natural disinclination on the part of the authorities to dismiss men who have done their duty. With regard to the very reasonable demand of the hon. Member that the Committee should know something of the Bill before they proceed to the details, I have simply this to say. If the hon. and learned Member withdraws his Amendment we shall simply affirm the principle of police superannuation, and the dedication of a certain sum to that purpose. With re-
    1428
    gard to the mode in which it is to be carried out, before we reach Clause 4, which deals with the matter somewhat in detail, I think I can safely promise that the Scotch Bill will be in the possession of hon. Members. It will be substantially on the lines of the English Bill. These are intimations which I hope will be satisfactory to the hon. Member, and that he will allow this clause to pass without further comment.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: With all due respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I cannot regard either the substance or form of his answer as satisfactory. Where is the Lord Advocate? I mean no disrespect to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General, who fulfils his duties in a manner which does him credit. But the Lord Advocate is responsible for Scotch business. The Secretary for Scotland is the chief officer connected with the business of Scotland, but he is in another House and we never see him. The Lord Advocate in this House represents Scotch business in this House with a fulness and power which the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot profess to possess. Here is the Scotch clause of the most contentious Bill of the whole Session, and the Lord Advocate is absent. I have reason to believe he is not ill. Had he been I should not have said anything. But I understand he is otherwise occupied. I do not think it is treating Scotch Memders with any very high degree of respect. [Laughter.] The ex-Lord Mayor (Sir R. N. Fowler) laughs at that statement. I can assure him it is earnestly felt by Scotch Members. The Lord Advocate ought to have been here. Besides the Lord Advocate, there ought to have been the Bill. This Bill was read a first time on the last day of April. It ought to have been at the other end of the month—on the 1st of April—as a day more appropriate to this measure. Yet here we are in June without the Bill which is to carry out this clause. As to what the hon. Member for Aberdeen said, I confess myself not altogether enamoured of universal superannuation, noram I enamoured of the

    1429
    extension of the superannuation of the police. We have a system of superannuation in the Police Service of this country, and I confess frankly I do not like it. I should rather like to see it stinted and restrained than developed. Like the rest of the Scotch Members, I think we are entitled to see the Bill before proceeding with this clause.
    MR. RITCHIE: I am not surprised that it should have been expected that the Lord Advocate would be present, but I may explain that he had an engagement of the very highest and most urgent importance. He was prepared to throw it over, and remain in the House, but his Colleagues did not wish him to do so in view of the exceptional importance of his engagement. If there be any blame, it should attach, not to the Lord Advocate, but to his Colleagues who advised him. Looking to the fact that the main question of police superannuation would be discussed on a subsequent clause, when the Superannuation Bill would be in the hands of the Committee, his Colleagues thought they were hardly justified in asking him to forego that engagement. Therefore, if there is any blame, it is due not to the Lord Advocate, but rather to his Colleagues. Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman asks why the Scotch Superannuation Bill has not been produced, and that Bill is the gravamen of the objection now made. He says the Bill was ordered to be printed on the 30th of April, and, after indulging in a little pleasantry as to the 1st of April, to which the right hon. Gentleman is quite welcome, he wanted to know why so long an interval had been allowed to elapse without the production of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman must understand that if only the Scotch Bill has had to be presented no difficulty would have arisen in that way, but it has had to be considered in connection with the English Bill, and a large number of intricate and difficult points have had to be decided in that connection. In the case of the English Bill the Committee have been content with the intimation of the Government that the Superannuation Bill would be in the hands of
    1430
    Members before the discussion on the particular clause of the main Bill dealing with the application of the money to police superannuation came on; and before the Committee embarked on the discussion of the particular clause dealing with this question in relation to Scotland, the Scotch Superannuation Bill will be in the hands of hon. Members. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, after having made his protest, will accept my reasons for the non-production of the Bill, and my assurance that before the particular clause comes on for discussion the Bill will be in the hands of hon. Members. Its proposals will be found to be closely analogous to those of the English Bill.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL&c.): We now know how we stand in regard to the representation of Scotland, and why it is the Government are anxious to postpone this clause. They suggested that it should be postponed, and now we have it before us we find that the Scotch Department is not represented by the Minister who is chiefly responsible to this House for the administration of Scotch affairs. We have often complained of the way in which, under the present system, that Department is represented. There is a Secretary for Scotland, who is chiefly responsible for Scotch administration, whom we never see at all, and who, I believe, is at the present moment cruising about the North of Ireland, but even were he in London we should not be able to see him, as he is not a member of this Assembly. But we have in this House the Lord Advocate, who represents the Chief Secretary, but although he is an officer in receipt of a high salary we do not find him here. He is said not to be to blame because his Colleagues have supported him in his absence; still we have the fact that he will not forego his private functions for those he ought to perform in this House. Under such circumstances we ought not to be called upon to deal with this question, while the absence of the Scotch Superannuation Bill is a further reason for not dealing with this matter. For my part,

    1431
    I believe there ought to be some system of superannuation for Government servants, because they have peculiar duties to perform, and there are many reasons why they should have consideration, but it is not only the principle of superannuation with which we have to deal; we are called upon to vote a distinct sum. Now, I ask, can we judge whether that sum is right or wrong unless we know what the scheme of superannuation is? In England there is in most counties and boroughs a superanuuation system, but in Scotland no such system has been adopted. At present, we have not the least idea of what is to be the system on which we are asked to vote a grant of money, and under these circumstances I beg to move, Sir, that you report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir G. Campbell.)
    MR. ESSLEMONT: I desire strongly to support the Motion of my hon. Friend. I admit that there is a strong case for police superannuation, and for 20 years I have supported that proposal, on account of the exceptional duties the police are called on to perform, through a large portion of their lives. But, although supporting this view, I admit there is great diversity of opinion in Scotland on this subject. No case has been made out for calling on us to give a blank cheque for police superannuation. We ought to have the Bill before us. I desire particularly to direct attention to the humiliating position in which Scotland is constantly being placed. It is not enough that we have no one here sufficiently representing Scotland. It is not enough that we should take at second hand from the Lord Advocate the opinions of the Chief Secretary, but we are told to-night for the first time that so little do the Government consider the interests of Scotland that they have assured the Lord Advocate he may leave the House at a time when important Scotch business is about to be considered.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now going into matter which is
    1432
    very wide of the question before the Committee.
    MR. ESSLEMONT: I do not desire to do that. I am only endeavouring to show that because the Lord Advocate is not here, and we have no Bill dealing with this question, we are not in a position to discuss it at the present moment. I desire to show that the position in which Scotland is placed is the reason why Progress should be reported, so that the Lord Advocate may be able to be in his place when the matter is discussed. The Lord Advocate is the only Minister entitled to speak for Scotland. ["No, no."] Let those who say "No, no," tell me who is entitled to speak for Scotland?
    An hon. MEMBER: The Solicitor General.
    MR. ESSLEMONT: The Solicitor General for Scotland has already said he is not in a position to speak.
    MR. M. T. STORMONTH DARLING: I beg pardon; I said nothing of the kind.
    MR. ESSLEMONT: I should be very sorry to misinterpret the hon. Gentleman, who, if anything, is always most conciliatory and courteous, but he has told the Committee that the Bill is not ready, and that the lines on which it is to be drawn are not settled.
    MR. M. T. STORMONTH DARLING: The hon. Member, most unintentionally no doubt, entirely misrepresents me. I did not say that the lines of the Bill were not settled, nor did I say that I did not fully represent the Scotch Department in the absence of the Lord Advocate. The lines of the Bill are settled, and it will be published very shortly, and in what I have said I have spoken with the authority of the Government.
    MR. ESSLEMONT: I am exceedingly glad that the interruption has brought about so important a statement. Now we know where we are. We know that the Lord Advocate has delegated his duties, and that the Secretary for Scotland has also delegated his duties to the Solicitor General for Scotland, and that he knows exactly the lines on which the Scotch Bill for the superannuation of the

    1433
    police is being drawn, and yet he asks us to give a blank cheque on the faith of the Bill being entirely satisfactory to the Scotch Members—to grant this sum of £40,000 for police superannuation without knowing one of the provisions of the Bill, or the lines on which it is being drawn. The statement of the Solicitor General furnishes a sufficient reason why this clause should be postponed, and why we should not be called on to discuss it till we have the details of the Bill before us.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I cannot understand on what ground this Motion is resisted. This will be an admirable opportunity for the few Scotch Members who sit on the other side to show by their vote that they think Scotch business can be very well conducted in this House without the presence of the right hon. Gentleman who represents the interests of Scotland in the Government. We have heard a great deal about Home Rule for Scotland, and, if there ever was a reason for it, it is to be found in the contempt with which the interests of Scotland are tonight treated by the Government. They knew that Scotch business was coming on, and the absence of the Lord Advocate at such a time is a thing for which no excuse whatever can be made. I knew something in the old days about the management of Scotch business in this House. The executive officer in the person of the Secretary for Scotland, or the Lord Advocate, is the official to represent the interests of Scotland, and to inform Members for Scotland of the policy of the Government with regard to Scotland, and the notion of relegating a duty of that kind to the Solicitor General for Scotland is a thing I never heard of. I am delighted to see that the Tory Scotch Members are going to vote for that mode of conducting Scotch business, for, they may depend upon it, the incident will not be overlooked or forgotten in Scotland. The people of Scotland have already had some indications that their business is neglected and not treated with the attention it deserves and demands, and now we have a Scotch clause before us—a clause dealing directly with the interests of Scotland, under many heads, such as education, police, and licensing—and we have the
    1434
    Government bent on forcing the clause through in the absence of the Lord Advocate. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury will undertake to explain these Scotch subjects as affected by the Bill. We shall be very happy to hear what he has to say, as we are informed that the whole principle of police superannuation in Scotland has been settled. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will get up and state what those principles are. The Scotch Members will hear that announcement with great interest and satisfaction; but, in the meantime, we protest against this method of treating Scotch business and Scotch Members. I venture to say it is a thing which Scotland has a right to resent, and the Government may depend upon it that Scotland will resent it. The Scotch people have demanded, and they will continue to demand, a much fuller control of the affairs of their own country, especially when they have before them the conduct of the Government to-night.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman has challenged me to explain the principles of Scotch Police Superannuation. I would reply that the principles on which the Scotch Superannuation Bill are framed are to be found in the Bills for which the right hon. Gentleman opposite was responsible in 1883–4–5, allowance being made for application to Scotland. The Scotch Superannuation Bill is in course of preparation, and is only slightly different from the English Bill. The principle of superannuation is the same in both countries. The right hon. Gentleman has referred in strong language to the absence of the Lord Advocate. My right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board has stated why the Lord Advocate is absent. ["No, no."] Yes, I think he has. I take the full and entire responsibility for the Lord Advocate's absence.
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: What is the cause?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: There are occasions when hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite are not in their places; and although I admit it is the duty of Members of the Government to be present whenever the circumstances of the case require it, there are occasions which are

    1435
    of importance to their position as members of the Bar when their absence is excusable. There are Members of the House who are aware of the sacrifices which a Lord Advocate has to make in order to be present in the House; and I am sure I am speaking to hon. Gentlemen who are not without sympathy for the ability of the Lord Advocate in this House, and will not desire to comment harshly upon a temporary absence. The Government are represented by the Solicitor General for Scotland, and what we ask for now is merely an admission of the principle of superannuation in Scotland. It will be remembered that the principle of superannuation was recognised as regards England before the English Bill was in the hands of hon. Members. Surely the Committee do not desire to negative the principle of superannuation for the Scotch police? The Bill to give effect to that principle will have to be considered on SECOND READING, in Committee, and in the House; and hon. Members can then deal with its details. The question the Committee are now considering is whether we shall not accept the principle of superannuation for the police of Scotland as well as for England.
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: The right hon. Gentleman the leader of the House appealed to me as being in some manner bound to extend a special indulgence to the Lord Advocate. Well, I will tell him how I look on it. There was a time—three or four years ago—when the Secretary for Scotland sat in this House. I was present during the discussion on the Crofters Bill, which was a measure (dealing as it did with several counties) quite as important as the question of the superannuation of the police, and at the side of the Secretary for Scotland were both the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland, who acted as his advisers. Now the Secretary for Scotland is in the other House, and the Lord Advocate is more than an adviser—he is virtually the Administrator of Scotland. The Lord Advocate gets a magnificent salary, and the idea that gentlemen of the Long Robe are justified in postponing public to private interests is one I do not share. Any gentleman of the Long Robe who has public duties to perform,
    1436
    and at the same time private interests to serve, should make those public duties and private interests coincide with some propriety. This is the first piece of important, practical Scotch business of the Session, and the First Lord not only asks the Committee to accept the absence of the Lord Advocate, but to pass in an hour without any discussion on the merits what is, in fact, the Second Reading of a most important Bill. What is the state of police superannuation in Scotland? I do not happen to have before me the Return issued the other day, but I know the essence of it very well, and I know there is only one burgh in Scotland where there is a regular system of police superannuation—namely, Greenock, and the 17 policemen superannuated there are practically the whole of the superannuated police in Scotland. Besides this a few allowances are given by the Town Council of Glasgow. Superannuation does, not exist, practically speaking, in Scotland at this moment. I do not say whether it is right or wrong; but I do say that to set up a system of superannuation in Scotland is equivalent to passing the SECOND READING of a most important Bill, and that Bill is not before the Committee. We are told by the First Lord of the Treasury that we are to gather what is proposed for Scotland from Bills which were introduced, but which did not pass, years ago—when half the hon. Gentlemen who are now in Parliament were not Members of this House. That is impossible. It is too great a task to put upon any Parliament which is of human birth. What would the First Lord of the Treasury say if the First Lord of the Admiralty were in the House of Lords, and the Secretary to the Admiralty were absent, and the most important Naval Estimates had to be moved by the Civil Lord?
    MR. A. ELLIOT: I doubt very much whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, and the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, were quite serious in the reasons they gave in asking for a postponement. They seem to think it palatable to Scotchmen that they should rebuke the Lord Advocate and insult the Scotch Solicitor General who takes his place and endeavours to discharge the

    1437
    duty of representing Scotland in his absence. This pretence on the part of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen is most patent. If they simply wish to cause delay let them get up and say so. That pretence is really too absurd. It is incumbent on the right hon. Member for Bridgeton to show, what he has entirely failed in showing, that if the Lord Advocate had been present he could have given one single reason or advanced any argument which it is not in the power of the Solicitor General to do. We all know that the Lord Advocate is not only an able man, but that he attends strictly to his duties and works hard at his business. It is the merest nonsense to suggest that the Committee are not in a position to proceed with this clause. I resent the pretensions of Members who make occasional visits to Scotland for electioneering purposes that they know anything about the sentiments of the great masses of the Scottish people. Above all things the Scottish people like their business to be done well and effectually. If the Committee are going to reject the scheme let them do so; but do not let them make a pretence, which no one believes to be genuine, that the Committee is not competent to deal with the matter.
    DR. CAMERON: The Scotch Members have the reputation of being a practical set of men, and I wonder it did not occur to some of them to take note of the statement of the Solicitor General for Scotland that we should look at the provisions of the English Bill as an indication of the intentions of the Government as to superannuation. I procured a copy of the Bill to see what enlightenment it would afford, and here I would say that the hon. Member who has just sat down, and who spoke with an eloquence which drew forth the cheers of the Ministerialists, did not seem to know what he was talking about. He accuses us of obstructing the business of Parliament on what he calls a mere "pretence." But what is the plea on which we are recommending that this particular business should be postponed? I venture to say that if hon. Members will listen to what it is, they will no longer be inclined to cheer such observations as those which fell from the hon. Member. The
    1438
    hon. Member for Aberdeen has pointed out that practically there is no superannuation in Scotland. We have come to a sub-section of Clause 2, by which £40,000 is to be applied for the purpose of police superannuation in Scotland. It is pointed out by the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) that there is no system of police superannuation in Scotland, while in England there is. The Scottish Members wish for an explanation as to the scheme which is proposed. Turning to Clause 4, I find there an argument against the proposals of the Government, for while it is proposed that £150,000 shall be granted for the superannuation of the police of London—
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman must not enter into the question of the merits of the proposal. The Question before the Committee is that of reporting Progress.
    DR. CAMERON: I am merely pointing out that while £150,000 is proposed to be granted for the superannuation of the police of London, only £40,000 is to be granted for the purpose in Scotland—the population being about equal. That is a point which I think justifies us in demanding an explanation. What explanation have we had?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman must not examine the merits of the proposal. The Question before the House is one of reporting progress.
    DR. CAMERON: We know nothing about the merits of the scheme, and that is what we want to know. The President of the Local Government Board has referred us to the English Bill. I have got a copy, and I will read two clauses to show—[Cries of "Order!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is again examining the merits. It is quite irregular I must again ask him to address himself to the Question of reporting Progress.
    DR. CAMERON: I would submit that the unsatisfactory replies we have received are the best possible reason why we should report Progress. I am in favour of the principle of superannuation; but, as far as I understand, the proposals of the English Bill are absolutely impossible of application to Scotland. The Lord Advocate, if he had been present, might have told us something. The

    1439
    Solicitor General knows nothing about the matter.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I shall certainly support the Motion to report progress, and I am sure it will be supported by a vast majority of the Scottish Members. They have not before them, as they have a right to have, the measure dealing with the superannuation to which this sub-section applies; and, again, they have not in his place the Officer of the Government who could have given them information—the Lord Advocate. The Government cannot pretend that they have not had fair notice. [Ministerial cries of "Divide."] I am perfectly determined to have my say out. The inarticulate groaning of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Sir A. Orr-Ewing) will have no influence upon me. The Government had fair notice that Scotch Members desired to see the Bill before dealing with this clause, and, while various reasons have been given for the non-introduction of the Bill, the Solicitor General for Scotland is unable to tell us anything about it. Certainly, the delay in the production of the Bill is not due to overwork in the Scotch office. But it is worthy of comment among Scottish Members, that when it is important that a Bill of this sort should be produced at an early date it is continually promised but never produced. I think we should enter a protest against a mode of proceeding which has been adopted on several occasions—making one measure depend on the production of another. That occurred in the case of the Inland Revenue Bill and in the case of the Contagious Diseases (Pleuro-Pneumonia) Bill. Then we have the clauses of this Bill, which are dependent upon the clauses of another Bill which is not introduced. I think the House of Commons is bound—[Interruption]—I think the House of Commons is bound—[Interruption]—I think the House of Commons is bound—[Interruption]—
    1440
    to show its independence by refusing to proceed further at present with this Bill. This is the first occasion during the present Session that Government business dealing with Scotland has been before the House, and yet upon this occasion the Lord Advocate for Scotland, the Member of the Ministry who is responsible for Scotch Government business, is not present. I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot) was altogether happy in his defence of the Lord Advocate's absence. [Interruption.]
    MR. W. REDMOND: Mr. Courtney, I wish to draw your attention to a very serious matter, namely, the continual interruption indulged in by hon. Members opposite.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Buchanan.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I am perfectly indifferent to the interruption which my remarks meet with on that side. What I was saying was that my hon. Friend was not very successful in his defence of the Lord Advocate's absence My hon. Friend said the Lord Advocate as everyone will acknowledge, works hard at his own business. I would like to ask my hon. Friend and the House what part of his own business it is the Lord Advocate is working hard at at the present moment. We know that the Lord Advocate is appearing in a very important will suit before the Scotch Courts, but the question is—it affects all the Law Officers of the Crown—how far the Law Officers are justified in allowing private practice to interfere with their public duties. To-morrow the Police Vote is to be brought on for discussion. What would be thought if the Home Secretary, who is primarily responsible in the matter, were not in his place to defend his conduct? In this matter we are bound, not only as Scotch Members but as individual independent Members of the House of Commons, to enter our emphatic protest against being kept further in the dark as to the Government's views in regard to police superannuation. A gross insult has been cast upon Scotch Members, not so much by the Lord Advocate as by the Government, who,

    1441
    when they bring a small modicum of Scotch business before the House, have not the decency to see that the Minister who is responsible for its conduct should be present.
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: I rise not so much for the purpose of supporting the Motion, but to suggest a way out of the difficulty. I do not see much in the objection that the Lord Advocate is not here. The First Lord of the Treasury has told us that there are occasions when the Lord Advocate for Scotland is justified in being absent, and that this is one of those occasions. I think that explanation is more disrespectful to the Lord Advocate than it is to Scotland or the Scotch Members. But the man who ought to be here is not the Lord Advocate but the Secretary for Scotland. I for one would be prepared to go on with the discussion of the Bill with the Lord Advocate represented on this occasion by the Solicitor General for Scotland, who, as far as I know, is just as competent and as well entitled to the respect of the House as the Lord Advocate. But there is one condition to my assent, and that touches the second ground on which the Motion to report Progress is based. We do not know the meaning of the sub-section we are called upon to debate. In putting this subsection in its present form the Government are sinning' against the positive warning they received a week ago in respect to a similar sub-section to the English clause. We protested against discussing a sub-section which did not explain its own meaning, and which could only be explained by reference to a Bill which, as far as we know, is not in existence. The Solicitor General for Scotland has admitted he knows the contents of that Bill. I will not vote for this Motion if the Solicitor General for Scotland will, after the Motion is withdrawn, get up in his place and state what the contents of the Bill for the superannuation of the police in Scotland are. But if the Solicitor General stands upon his silence or sits upon his silence, and refuses to give the House the knowledge which is essential to the discussion of this sub-section, then I
    1442
    shall have no alternative but to go into the Lobby in support of the Motion to report Progress.
    MR. SEYMOUR KEAY(who was received with cries of "Divide!"): I will not detain the Committee more than one moment after this uproar has ceased. I merely rose to support the Motion for the purpose of asking the President of the Local Government Board for some reply to the pointed question I put to him during my speech at the dinner hour.
    THE CHAIRMAN: That speech I understood to refer to licensing.
    MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: If I am not in order I will sit down at once. My impression was that on a Motion to report Progress a Member might elicit from a Minister of Her Majesty's Government some reply to an important question asked in a speech which had been made. If that is not so I must take another opportunity of obtaining a reply.
    DR. TANNER: I must confess some astonishment at the extraordinary attitude of hon. Members opposite. I suppose that after the races they want a little fun, but Scotch Members are entitled to insist that business shall be conducted in a manner beneficial to the nation they represent. The Lord Advocate is absent, but there is another Member of the Government who might conveniently be present——
    An hon. MEMBER: Will you kindly speak up?
    DR. TANNER: I am afraid the hon. Member's hearing' is as obtuse as his intellect. I should have thought that upon an occasion like the present, especially when the Lord Advocate is absent, the Chief Secretary for Ireland might have been in his place. I regret extremely that the Solicitor General for Scotland does not consider it part of his duty to remain in the House, and accordingly I shall with a great deal of pleasure support the Motion to report

    1443
    progress. It is obvious to the mind of the meanest, the most ordinary observer—(Cries of "Hear, hear!")—of course, if the cap fits I do not object. Seeing the jaded condition of the Treasury Bench I think it would be well to report Progress and proceed with other business of benefit to the country. There is the Barracks Bill upon the Paper. We are assured that is an important Bill. I suppose I should be out of order in discussing that Bill, and I always strive to keep in order, but——
    Mr. LAMBERTrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    (11.20.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 274; Noes 221.—(Div. List, No. 149.)
    Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    (11.30.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 230; Noes 273.—(Div. List, No. 150.)
    Question again proposed, "That Subsection (i.) stand part of the Clause."
    DR. CAMERON: This, Sir, is a very unfortunate matter. The question of police superannuation, whatever view we may entertain about its merits, is one on which there is very strong feeling one way or the other. It is a matter on which I think hon. Members will be called upon by their constituents to justify the vote they have given, and I would ask whether it is proper that at this hour of the night we should start discussing it. There has been practically no discussion whatever upon the merits of the proposal. The hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) moved the rejection of the sub-section, and he was followed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman). These were the only two gentlemen who discussed the merits of the proposal. They were followed by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell), who moved to report Progress. I would
    1444
    point out that if we postpone the consideration of the question now, we shall have the discussion on the Vote for the Police before it can come on again. On the smallest sign that the Government assent to this course I will sit down. As we cannot have the Motion for Progress twice in succession, I move that you now leave the Chair.
    Motion made, and question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Dr. Cameron.)
    DR. TANNER: I was Closured when I supported the Motion for reporting Progress, and, accordingly, I understand that the proper Motion now is that you, Sir, do leave the Chair. I regret extremely that Her Majesty's Government are in such a ridiculous position, and I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not speaking to the question.
    DR. TANNER: I really regret if I have in any way transgressed; but having been Closured just now on the Motion to report Progress, I felt bound to vindicate my position, and to show that the right hon. Gentleman was in the wrong, whereas I was in the right.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question again proposed, "That Subsection (1) stand part of the Clause."
    MR. RITCHIE: Of course, it would be perfectly useless for the Government to press forward with the Bill during the time that is still at their disposal; but I wish to take notice of some remarks that fell from the hon. Member for the College Division (Dr. Cameron). He says that there has been no discussion on this clause. Why has there been no discussion? Because the time of the Committee has been deliberately wasted.
    MR. A. SUTHERLAND: I rise to a point of order. I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is justified in saying of any hon. Members of the House that they had deliberately wasted the time of the Committee.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is not out of order.
    MR. RITCHIE: The question was spoken to by the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the clause, and by other hon. Members. [Opposition cries of "Withdraw!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to uninterrupted speech.
    MR. RITCHIE: Then the Debate was interrupted by the Motion to report Progress, moved because of the absence of my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate. The Committee were aware that one of the Law Officers of Scotland was in his place perfectly prepared to defend the provisions of the Bill. It was alleged, also, that the Bill was not produced, though my hon. and learned Friend and I myself stated that the provisions of the Bill with reference to police superannuation in Scotland were precisely the same as the provisions of the Bill relating to Eng land. So far from there not being a Minister here in charge of Scotch business, and so far from the Committee not being in full possession of the proposals of the Government——[Opposition cries of "Question!"]
    MR. E. ROBERTSON': I beg to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is in order in discussing the merits of a Motion which has already been decided by the Committee?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is certainly not strictly in order, but he is replying to the observations which I think he is entitled to reply to.
    MR. RITCHIE: I shall not trespass further on the time of the House. I maintain that the allegations I made at the commencement of my remarks are fully justified.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: This experience will be a lesson to us not to allow any other clause of the Bill to be taken, as we allowed the 1st clause practically without any discussion.
    It being midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I wish to ask the President of the Local Government Board what business it is intended to take on Monday? The
    1446
    business, I hear, is the Procedure Order for carrying over Bills.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask a question of the leader of the House to-morrow?
    MR. J. MORLEY: I really think we have a right to know.
    MR. GOSCHEN: If the right hon. Gentleman will repeat the question on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House I will attempt to give an answer.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: What day is the Bill going to be put down for?
    MR. RITCHIE: Monday.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

    ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 239.)
    Bill considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow.
  PHARMACY ACT (IRELAND) (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 241.)

    COMMITTEE.
    (12.7.) Order for Committee read.
    DR. TANNER: I object.
    MR. JOHNSTON: I hope the hon. Member will not press his objection.
    DR. TANNER: I object. I must do so, for the simple reason that a great many objections have been raised to the Bill. I think the hon. Member in charge of it would do wisely to get it referred to a Select Committee.
    MR. SEXTON: I hope my hon. Friend will allow this Bill to proceed. There are about 3,000 persons in Ireland interested in the trade. The matter has been the subject of negotiations between the bodies interested, and the questions of difference have been fined down to a very small point; while my hon. Friend the Member for North Longford has agreed to postpone the Amendment standing in his name. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork will not make himself the sole opponent in this House of a very useful Bill.
    DR. TANNER: I have heard from so many medical gentlemen in Ireland specific objections to this Bill that it is solely on that ground I object.

    1447
    I would with the greatest possible pleasure allow the Bill to go through if I could conscientiously do so, but I must really object on the present occasion.
    MR. T.M. HEALY: I would suggest: to the hon. Member that his Amendments could be brought up on the Report stage.
    DR. TANNER: I must object.
    Committee deferred till to-morrow.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND) RATING BILL. (No. 149.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. SEXTON: I object to this Bill not because of its proposals, but because of the manner in which it is drafted. Still, with this protest the Bill may proceed.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 2.
    MR. SEXTON: It appears to me that this clause, as amended, is not sense. Surely it is intended to combine Clauses 2 and 3.
    MR. MADDEN: I would suggest to the hon. Member to allow the Bill to pass; it can be re-committed if necessary. In the Bill, Clauses 2 and 3 will become Clause 2.
    MR. SEXTON: The difficulty is that the Amendments apply to separate clauses.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I cannot see why a proposal to rate a house according to the time it is occupied should have to be assented to by the Irish Local Government Board. Surely that ought not to be insisted on?
    MR. MADDEN: If the hon. and learned Member will put an Amendment on the Paper, I shall be happy to consider it before the Report.
    DR. TANNER: As the Amendments make this measure so intricate, I move that we report Progress.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It would greatly facilitate Progress if the hon. Member
    1448
    would allow these Amendments first to be carried.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I think the Bill had better proceed. The Government undertake to re-commit it if necessary?
    MR. MADDEN: Certainly.
    Mr. CHANCE: I trust the Government will re-print the Bill.
    MR. MADDEN: Yes.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be printed [Bill 350]; re-committed for Monday next.

  INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 7.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will, upon Wednesday 2nd July, again resolve itself into the said Committee."—(Mr. Lea.)
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I object. Under these circumstances, I think the Bill must be set down for this day (Friday).
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: No; July 2.
    Objection having been taken, Mr. SPEAKER ascertained by the preponderance of voices that the House was in favour of Wednesday, 2nd July.
    Committee deferred till Wednesday 2nd July.

    TENANTS' COMPENSATION BILL.—(No. 259.)
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  INFANT LIFE PROTECTION BILL.
  The Select Committee on the Infant Life Protection Bill was nominated of:—Mr. Bartley, Mr. William Corbet, Lord Francis Hervey, Mr. John Kelly, Mr. Knowles, Mr. William Lawrence, Mr. Walter M'Laren, Mr. Storey-Maskelyne, Mr. Mather, Sir Herbert Maxwell, Mr. Patrick O'Brien, Mr. Powell, Mr. Parker Smith, Mr. Francis Stevenson, Mr. John Wilson, Mr. Woodall, and Mr. Stuart-Wortley.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)
  House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.

SAT FIRST.
The Lord Bishop of Durham—Took the Oath for the first time.
The Lord Bishop of Salisbury—Took the Oath for the first time.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Sudeley.)
    THE BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I hope you will make a little allowance for a Bishop intruding into a matter of a description with which Bishops are not generally supposed to be concerned. It is not usual for any Bishop to oppose a Railway Bill, because the settlement of such matters is, generally speaking, left to those who are more intimately concerned with material questions. Bishops who are mostly concerned with spiritual and moral questions, do not usually take any part in them. But I am sure I shall have the indulgence of your Lordships in taking a part in this case, because I take that part on the ground of danger to St. Paul's Cathedral, which is not only dear to the citizens of London, but to the Church and the whole of England. The Bishop of London may naturally be supposed to watch with very careful jealousy anything which may possibly endanger a fabric which we all admire very much and value so highly. The proposal in this case is to carry a railway from Bayswater to Cheapside, underneath Oxford Street and Holborn, to the corner of Newgate Street, and there it approaches very near the Cathedral of St. Paul's. The railway itself is at a greater distance than the station will be, but the station which it is proposed to have at the corner of Newgate Street as proposed, will come within about 70 yards of the north-east corner of the cathedral.
    1294
    I think the exact distance is 225 feet—consequently it becomes a matter of very serious consideration how this will affect the stability of the cathedral, as it now stands. Now, my Lords, we have very distinct evidence indeed of the kind of foundation on which St. Paul's Cathedral rests. We know by the researches made by Sir Christopher Wren, the architect of the cathedral, that there is a considerable quantity of brick-earth at the surface, and that when you have got below that, you very soon come to sand and gravel, then below that is what Sir Christopher Wren called "a beach," and then a little lower still we come to the London clay. Now, the sand and gravel which I have mentioned are known to be water-bearing strata. They are full of water up to some height in the strata. The top of the sand is said to be tolerably dry, but the bottom of the sand and gravel is certainly not, and the real danger which threatens St. Paul's Cathedral is that the water may be drained off from this sand and gravel and, consequently, that the sand and gravel, may sink down to a lower space than it occupies at present. Your Lordships are, I suppose, quite aware that of all the things we know water is one of those which it is most difficult, if not absolutely impossible, to compress into a smaller space. You can compress sand and gravel without any great difficulty if you use weight enough, and you can compress even tolerably hard rock if you get weight enough upon it, but water, as far as we know, can hardly be compressed at all. The drawing away of the water from this sand and gravel will, therefore, leave the sand and gravel subject to compression by the weight above them, and the weight above them in this case is an enormous weight—it is the weight of the whole of the vast edifice; and, therefore, my Lords, I think it must be admitted that if there would be a danger of that kind in any case, it is quite certain there must be danger in this case. The danger, of course, is precisely this, that when you have anything like a withdrawal of water which lies underneath the foundations, the subsidence is not always equal. It cannot be. The foundations subside more in one part than in another, and the result, of course, is that your building is unequally supported. Anybody can see that the danger from that is very serious, and

    1295
    that in all such cases, you will have subsidences, cracks, and possibly the actual ruin of parts of the structure. My Lords, it is this danger that all those who are concerned in the safety of St. Paul's are anxious about. The promoters of the Bill have just laid a statement before the House, and it appears from that statement that they are prepared to say there is no danger whatever. They say there is no real risk to St. Paul's. But let me point out, in the first place, that it is not quite sufficient for them to say there is no real risk, unless they are prepared to point out how this argument which I have put before your Lordships' House is to be met. I have gone carefully through the evidence, and I must say that I cannot find any answer to this argument. Then, my Lords, I have to observe in the next place that these are certain cases adduced in which a railway has gone very near a great structure without doing it any very great damage. In support of this Bill it is urged that the Metropolitan District Railway runs within 70 feet of Westminster Abbey, and that it has done no damage to Westminster Abbey; also that it runs within 20 feet of Westminster Hospital, and has done no damage to Westminster Hospital. That, of course, would be relevant enough if the depths were at all comparable with one another, but the fact is that the foundations of Westminster Abbey go down from the surface, probably 15 feet, while the District Railway is below the surface just 18 feet, and, therefore, whatever drainage would be caused by the Metropolitan District Railway would be a drainage of a depth of three feet only. That sums up the mischief that can possibly be done to Westminster Abbey by the District Railway. The withdrawal of the water from that three feet might conceivably do mischief; but it is not at all surprising that we should find no such mischief has been done when we consider that it is only from so small a depth of strata that the water has been withdrawn. But the rails of the Central London Railway would be 53 feet below the bottom of the foundations of St. Paul's Cathedral. There is a vast difference between taking the water away from merely 3ft., and taking the water away from 53ft. of strata; and we cannot at all argue that
    1296
    because a shallow railway has been run close to Westminster Abbey without doing any harm you may, therefore, run a railway to the depth of 53ft. close to St. Paul's Cathedral, and do no harm whatever to that great structure. It is plain in each case that the railway will only drain away the water down to its own depth, and that if you are affecting only 3ft. you may do little on no damage at all. I am not quite clear, my Lords, that no damage has been done to Westminster Abbey, because I believe the evidence of the Clerk of the Works is that there has been some slight damage done, although as yet it is not very much. But to drain away all the water that may be at this depth of 53ft. is a very different thing indeed, and the danger must he estimated in a totally different manner. Then it is stated that the railway would be carried through the London clay. It will be, no doubt, to a great extent, carried through the London clay, but it will very likely come above the level of the clay in various places. We cannot at all guarantee that the bottom of it will not be above the clay just at this part, and, therefore, the suggestion that the clay will hold the water which is above it, and protect the strata from sinking, does not apply in this case unless you can prove that at this point the water would lie altogether below the level of the railway itself. Even then you would have a great deal to show in order to prove that the London clay has no chinks or fissures in it, through which the water could penetrate. But, of course, my Lords, to have a railway constructed at that depth is more likely to be dangerous, although one at a considerably further distance might possibly be tolerably safe. But that is not all; it is proposed to put between the railway and St. Paul's Cathedral a large station, which, of course, must run down to the same depth as the railway itself; then there must also be shafts sunk down to that level, and all this is to be done within 75 yards of St. Paul's. Of course it may not come quite so close as I have mentioned, but the plans indicate the construction of a station which is to come within that distance. It is obvious, on the face of it, that even if it were possible to carry the railway, considered by itself, so near to St. Paul's without

    1297
    risk, to make this station and these shafts close by is entailing a risk of a very much more important character, a risk so serious that I do desiderate a better answer from the engineer than simply the ipse dixit of a man who says there is no danger to be apprehended. But, my Lords, that is not the whole matter. The engineer who has charge of this work is the Engineer also who has charge of the construction works of the London and South wark Subway, and that subway is being constructed in the very same manner in which this railway is proposed to be constructed. Well, the engineer, when be gave his evidence in support of the Bill for the London and South wark Subway, stated that that subway would do no mischief to surrounding buildings; but, my Lords, the subway has done mischief almost all along its extent. I have a list here showing many cases where houses have been injured. In 15 different cases mischief has been done, and, in particular, we have had injury done to St. James's Church, Kennington. That church is almost destroyed by the railway coming close to it. The engineer, afterwards, when he was asked whether the subway had not damaged the church, replied that the church was very slightly built, and that it was not at all like the solid masonry which Sir Christopher Wren took care to put into St. Paul's Cathedral. That answer, I think, my Lords, is of some importance upon this proposal, and we may say of that engineer's opinion in our view of it valeat quantum. But it is to be observed that this engineer, who had previously expressed himself as convinced that the subway would not at all hurt the property along its course, now gives, when it is clear that it has hurt the adjoining property, a totally different account of the matter, and says that the cause of the damage was that the injured building was not substantial enough. Against the fact that the statement made by the engineer was directed to the fact of the church being of rather unsubstantial construction, I put the fact of the enormously greater weight of St. Paul's Cathedral. My Lords, you have not here to consider the mere weight of an ordinary church. This is, no doubt, a very different thing, and when you have to consider such a weight as that of
    1298
    the vast edifice of St. Paul's Cathedral, you know for certain that the amount of pressure which will be existing in the case of that structure to squeeze the water out through any outlet which is provided for it, will be incalculably greater than the pressure exerted by the weight of such a comparatively small building as St. James's Church. It is said, my Lord, that this railway is to be constructed on an entirely new method. It is to be constructed upon the atmospheric pressure principle, and it is said that the atmospheric pressure used will be such as to prevent the water from escaping. Well, at any rate, we ought to have very clear evidence that it is possible to do so. In the case of the subway, they did not succeed in preventing mischief. They did succeed, to some degree, in preventing this perpetual leakage of water, but then your Lordships must consider that the subway is a tube of only 11 feet diameter, while this railway tunnel is nearly three times that diameter—its actual diameter is, I believe, 29 feet. Then there is the space for this station besides to be excavated. It may be quite possible to do with a tube 11 feet in diameter what it is quite impossible to do with a tube 28 feet in diameter. Every mathematician knows perfectly well that the amount of pressure which comes from the surface in such a case is not merely in proportion to diameters of tubes, but that it is very much larger in proportion as the diameters increase; and with regard to the pressure which will have to be resisted here, certainly there is no evidence yet to show that it can be resisted at all. We have the instance of the subway now being constructed in America under the river Hudson at New York. There they have had accidents occurring. Only in January last the tunnel they were making collapsed and killed 20 people, and we do not know yet whether it will be found possible for them to go on with that subway. At any rate Ave ought to be quite sure what we are doing before we sanction the introduction of this at present experimental method of dealing with such a case as this. The London County Council have had a proposal before them for making a subway which they were to authorise. But they declined to authorise it until they had

    1299
    had further experience, because they believed that the experiments were not sufficiently conclusive at present to justify them in accepting the belief of the engineer that this could be done without any serious risk, Now, it may be said that we have great experts declaring that they have looked into this, and that they are quite sure there is no risk of damage being done, but when your Lordships have these facts before you, you see here is one of these great engineers giving evidence of one kind at one time, and of another kind at another time, saying first that he is sure no damage will be done by the construction of the London and Southwark Subway, and then saying, when the damage is done, that it is the fault lies in the construction of the building which is damaged, and that it is not the fault of his subway in damaging it. I think your Lordships will agree that this kind of assertion on the part of engineers is not, as it does not seem to me to be, at all satisfactory. An engineer has been employed to look into the matter, from our point of view, and he was very anxious to put before the other House the case of Westminster Abbey, because he knew that something has been said about the circumstances of that case as bearing upon the present instance, but that was ruled to be irrelevant there. Certainly it is rather remarkable that it should be ruled irrelevant before the Committee of the House of Commons, and that yet the promoters of the Bill should cite that instance in favour of what they propose to do. My Lords, this is not a matter, surely, which ought to be decided upon mere speculative grounds. You ought not, surely, to run any risk of serious damage to such a fabric as St. Paul's Cathedral, unless you are quite sure. There are cases, of course, in which it is reasonable to say—"Here is a most important commercial undertaking, which will be of commercial advantage, and which will facilitate business, something which does contribute largely towards the commercial prosperity of the city, and, therefore, we must run a little risk, and if there be a doubt we must give the commercial undertaking the benefit of the doubt." But can you say that in such a case as this? Surely, if there be a doubt in this case, my Lords, you ought to give the
    1300
    benefit of that doubt to the Cathedral of St. Paul. If anything were done to wreck that great monument of Christian architecture, can we conceive any greater discredit to the Parliament of this country than that it should have consented to bring very serious ruin upon such a structure, in order that people might save 15 minutes in coming from Bayswater to Cheapside? I cannot conceive, if the importance of the matter is duly weighed, that those who really feel the gravity of so dealing with such a structure will be willing to consent this in a case where, certainly, we have no distinct proof of safety, but where we have, on the contrary, very distinct evidence that the experiment has not always been successful, and, when that is the case, it is too much to say we should allow such an experiment to be made now at the cost of what we value so much, of what we admire so highly, and of what we look upon as one of the glories of the Metropolis of England. I appeal to your Lordships to support me in resisting a speculation which may have such disastrous consequences as this, and I will ask anyone who feels disposed to vote on the other side, to think for a moment what he would feel if this Bill were to pass and he were a year hence to see that some very serious damage had been done to our great cathedral, seeing that he himself had had some hand in allowing it to be done. I appeal specially to your Lordships because I am the Bishop of that cathedral, and charged, therefore, with the duty of representing its fortunes in this House, and I am only doing my dirty to the very best of my very imperfect ability in stating as clear a case as I can why we should hesitate, and hesitate-long, before we agree to such a fatally hazardous experiment.
    Amendment moved, to leave out the word "now," and add at the end of the Motion the words "this day six months."—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
    VISCOUNT POWERSCOURT: My Lords, the opposition of the right rev. Prelate to this Bill goes to the principle of the Bill. I think that in a case such as this, as the right rev. Prelate has said, it requires great consideration; but I think your Lordships will agree that it is better not to oppose such a Bill on the

    1301
    principle involved in it. In successive Sessions different Bills with the object of improving the Metropolitan underground communications have been thrown out on various pleas. In one year objection was raised on account of injury to the trees in Hyde Park although the railway was to run under the roadway and 50 feet under the surface. In this case it is stated that the nearest point of the railway will be 250 feet distant from the Cathedral. I should doubt very much if any settlement of earth which could be caused by making a tunnel at that distance, could possibly affect the foundations of that magnificent structure. Your Lordships all know perfectly well the extraordinary way in which the great traffic of London has increased, and the congestion in the thoroughfares of Piccadilly, Oxford Street, and other places is apparent to everyone. I think it is unnecessary to say more to show the absolute necessity of some improvement in the means of the railway communication in the centre of the Metropolis. The scheme has been strongly supported in another place, and although, of course, as the right rev. Prelate says, we have not had the Bill before us in this House yet, still I think that there is a strong case for reading the Bill a second time, and for referring it to a Select Committee. The right rev. Prelate cited the case of a church in Kennington, where he says that the London and Southwark subway went close to it, but I think the distance of 250 feet, which is stated to be the nearest point here cannot be said to be very close to the Cathedral. There is no Member of your Lordships' House who would be more unwilling than myself to see any damage done to our great cathedral, but I must say I think the right rev. Prelate has not made a case of throwing out the Bill on Second Reading.
    THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE: My Lords I desire to say a few words for the purpose of contributing a little support from my own experience to the case made by the right rev. Prelate. For 10 years of my life I had the custody of a cathedral not so important as that of St. Paul's, still one of our most glorious and historic cathedrals; I mean the cathedral of Ely. It so happened that about 35 years ago, I think, some im-
    1302
    provements by way of drainage were carried out in the city of Ely. That was a great improvement, no doubt, to the whole town and for the comfort and health of the inhabitants; but it so happened that the cathedral of Ely stands upon a bed of sand, and the sand being saturated with water very much in the manner that has been described in this case by the right rev. Prelate, the effect of that drainage was, among other things, to let out a great deal of the water from the sandy stratum and to draw away the water from underneath the cathedral. When I was Dean of Ely Cathedral we had a great deal of trouble with regard to cracks and evidences of settlement appearing in different parts of the cathedral. I had a good deal to do with the expenditure in underpinning and making good the defects where there had been subsidences, and there was very great expenditure entailed by the delicate process of rebuilding flying buttresses. I am not sufficiently scientific to absolutely state the truth of what I now suggest, but the Clerk of the Works who had charge of the building, and in whom I had very great confidence, always attributed the difficulties which we experienced with regard to the cathedral to the fact of the drainage, which had taken place a few years before. I think myself that was very probably the cause. Certainly we had settlements and cracks in the building, which gave us a great deal of trouble, and no other cause was ever suggested except that which I have mentioned. Now, I think, my Lords, the phenomena which we experienced in Ely were exactly the same as may be anticipated here. If you drain away the water from the strata below, you will drain away a good deal of the support, and have, of course, cracks and subsidences in the superincumbent edifice. As far as the case of the cathedral goes, I myself feel very much disposed to support the right rev. Prelate, and I think the speech which we have just heard from a noble Lord tends very much to support the argument which preceded it. Because, what did the noble Lord opposite tell us? He gave us figures which entirely agreed with those mentioned by the right rev. Prelate, and all he did in addition was to say that he doubted very much

    1303
    that any mischief could happen. We ought not to allow St. Paul's Cathedral to depend upon a doubt; we must have certainty or something very much approaching certainty, before we can consent that the grandest, and, in some respects, the most important ecclesiastical building in the kingdom, a building with which the pride of the nation is bound up more than with any other, should suffer the smallest probability of having to undergo any risk.
    LORD SUDELEY: My Lords, the Motion of the right rev. Prelate seems to me to be one which is most unusual upon a Bill of this importance. It is. I believe, almost without precedent, and I venture to think that the right rev. Prelate has not made out his case. My Lords, what are the facts of the matter? This Bill is not a Bill which comes up to your Lordships for the first time. It is a Bill which comes up from the other House, having been thoroughly investigated in Committee. It has been most thoroughly debated upon two other occasions, and certainly it seems to me that if your Lordships refuse to allow it to go to a Committee you are liable to be charged with a grave act of discourtesy, and I venture to think it will be a course which it would be most unusual for your Lordships to adopt. The right rev. Prelate has undoubtedly made out, from his point of view, a strong case. He has spoken with deep conviction, and none of your Lordships can doubt that he has done so, feeling that it is his duty to make that protest; and he has made out, on the part of the opponents, undoubtedly, a case which, if it is true, is very strong. But, my Lords, it does seem to me, if the right rev. Prelate is correct in all his views, that is the very reason which would induce your Lordships to send it to a Committee of Inquiry. Surely, if he is right, in his own interest and in the interest of those who oppose the Bill, it is far better that the matter should be thoroughly threshed out; and if there is any danger to St. Paul's Cathedral, it should be shown at once, and then we shall hear no more about it. But, my Lords, what are the facts of the matter? The right rev. Prelate has based his opposition entirely on the ground that there is a danger, to St. Paul's from the con-
    1304
    struction of this railway. This question came before the Committee of the other House; it was most thoroughly gone into by that Committee, and they had before them three great engineers, Sir John Fowler, Sir Benjamin Baker, and Mr. Greathead. Those three enginneers proved to the satisfaction of the Committee that there was not the slightest danger to the foundations of St. Paul's. Cathedral. The right rev. Prelate has gone somewhat into an engineering discourse. He has stated, in the first place, that you cannot liken this in any way to the case of the Metropolitan District Railway which was made near Westminster Abbey. My Lords, it is somewhat interesting to remember that about 25 years ago in that matter a very similar discussion occurred. It was then shown that the Metropolitan District Railway would be constructed within 70 feet of Westminster Abbey and within 23 feet of Westminster Hospital, and that enormous danger would accrue to the foundations of those structures. But your Lordships are aware that no harm whatever has arisen. The right rev. Prelate says that was a totally different case, and that, in that case, the Metropolitan District Railway was only constructed at a very shallow distance from the surface, whereas, in this case, you are to have a railway 53 feet below the surface, and that, therefore, there is very great danger of damage from the drainage of the water. But, my Lords, if you are to consider the question in that light, you must remember the facts of the case. The proposal in this Bill is not that you should go into any stratum which would cause danger, but that you should go through the blue clay. The right rev. Prelate speaks of the tube through which this railway is to pass as being of far larger diameter than the London and Southwark Subway, that, whereas that has only a diameter of 11 feet, this is to be a tube of 29 feet diameter. Well, my Lords, as a matter of fact, I think the right rev. Prelate is entirely wrong in his statement. The two tubes are certainly only 11 feet each in diameter. Though I think there is very little necessity for me to go into the facts, still, as the right rev. Prelate has mentioned this matter I think I ought to make some reference to it. My Lords, the proposal under this Bill is that

    1305
    the railway should go within 250 feet at its nearest point of St. Paul's Cathedral: not 70 feet, as it was in the case of the Metropolitan District Railway in regard to Westminster Abbey. You have the highest engineering authorities saying there is not the slightest danger. My Lords, I think that shows, at any rate, there is another side to the question, whether right or wrong I will not say, but it certainly shows there is another aspect of the question which justifies an investigation before one of your Lordships' Committees. The noble Lord who spoke before me referred to the congestion of the traffic. The whole object of this Bill is to relieve the congested traffic in this great Metropolis. There can be no doubt, as probably any of your Lordships who take an interest in the matter are aware, that the traffic in London is growing to a most fearful extent. The number of omnibuses and cabs, which are increasing day by day, has become a great danger to all pedestrians; and I think, if there were no other ground for supporting this Bill, your Lordships would hardly refuse to give it a Second Reading when you consider that important point. I think it must be admitted that everyone who has watched the growth of our traffic must come to the conclusion that before long we must either have overhead railway accommodation or further underground railway communication. What I venture to suggest to your Lordships is this: that come what may, this Bill should now be read a second time, and that it should then be referred to one of your Lordships' Committees, where the measure can be thoroughly threshed out.
    THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I should like to say when I mentioned that the diameter of the tunnel was to be 29 feet, I meant that it would be so at the station and that the excavation for the station, and shafts would be an additional danger; that is to say, that the station would be, as regards distance, an addition to the tunnel.
    THE EARL OF MORLEY: I am sure your Lordships will not be surprised at the objection which has been taken by the right rev. Prelate, who watches over the fabric of St. Paul's Cathedral, or that he has taken the somewhat unusual course of moving the rejection of the Second Reading of this
    1306
    Bill from a strict sense of duty. I quite sympathise with, and I am sure your Lordships will share in, his anxiety to protect the grand fabric of that Cathedral from every risk of danger. But, my Lords, the question is, are we in a position to judge whether this is a risk or not? I listened to the rev. Prelate's speech and to the testimony that he produced to your Lordships. All that, no doubt, is very interesting engineering and geological evidence, which cannot be tested here, but which could be tested before one of those tribunals to which your Lordships refer Bills of this description. I will not express the slightest opinion as to the validity or invalidity of the reasons which the right rev. Prelate has alleged for saying that the construction of such a railway would be a risk to the fabric of St. Paul's; but I do maintain very strongly that it would not be right for the House to diverge from its usual practice on this occasion and to reject this Bill on Second Reading without giving both the promoters and opponents of it an opportunity of being heard before a Select Committee. The Bill was fought very thoroughly before the House of Commons; a Committee of that House sat very nearly a month, I think, considering it, and then the Bill was sent up with certain Amendments and certain safeguards, as was considered, to your Lordships' House. I do not for a moment anticipate what the decision of a Select Committee might be, whether it might conclude to pass the Bill or not, or, if it did pass the Bill, whether or not it might think fit to introduce; certain other safeguards in it; but this I do say, that it would be a very unfortunate course to take, especially after what has occurred in another place, if your Lordships did not give an opportunity for further investigation.
    THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I am sure we must all sympathise with the right rev. Prelate who has introduced this Motion. The right rev. Prelate is at the head of the Diocese of London, and not only is he at the head of the Diocese of London, but he is a very eminent leader of the Church of England, and he would not have been performing his duty if he had not, with the feeling which he entertains, brought this question to your Lordships' notice. But, my Lords, I

    1307
    doubt very much whether ho has proved his case. I myself think he has not done so, and the only point in which I differ from my noble Friend Lord Sudeley is that Lord Sudeley said he thought the right rev. Prelate Lad made out a strong case. Now, I cannot make out how Lord Sudeley could say that he had made out a strong case, inasmuch as the right rev. Prelate has not given us a single engineering authority to bear out what he has stated. He has referred to the opinions of eminent architects; but, on the ether hand, the promoters of this Bill have brought forward as evidence the opinions of two of the greatest engineers the world knows—Sir John Fowler and Sir Benjamin Baker. Those men would not risk their reputation—a reputation which is dear to them—by telling the Committee of the House of Commons there is not the smallest danger in what the company propose to do if they had thought there was danger. Sir Benjamin Baker went so far as to say that even if there were an open cutting-made there would be no danger to the foundations of St. Paul's Cathedral. My Lords, we have heard a great deal about St. Paul's Cathedral being erected on sand and gravel strata. But the promoters tell us that the tunnel is to run through the clay below. If the arguments of the right rev. Prelate are worth anything, they would go to show that the deeper the tunnel is driven the greater is the danger to be apprehended. He told us there was a parallel instance in the case of the Metropolitan District Railway running near Westminster Abbey; but that it was so near the surface that no danger had been incurred, and that, in fact, the danger increases with the depth to which you go. I am unable to give an opinion upon this question; but I do not think your Lordships are able to give an opinion upon it either. The whole question is one which I think ought to be discussed in Committee, and not in this House. We ought to have before that Committee the evidence of the greatest engineers we can find, and, of course, if it can be proved to the Committee that there is danger to the structure of the Cathedral, there is no one, I suppose, in your Lordships' House who would not immediately vote for throwing out the Bill. But I say it would be wrong for this House to
    1308
    go directly in the face of what was done in the House of Commons, where there was no Division even taken upon it. Its opponents were so few that there was not, I believe, a third person in the House to oppose it. My Lords, greater means of communication are wanted in this Metropolis. We have only to go along Oxford Street to see the congested state of the traffic there. There are only three ways of relieving it. One is by overhead communication, as they have in New York, which I do not think would be permitted in this Metropolis. Some of your Lordships may have travelled by the overhead railway in New York, and, though it may be exceedingly convenient to those who may desire to travel by it, it undoubtedly lowers the value of the houses below and makes privacy impossible in them. I am perfectly certain that the shopkeepers in Oxford Street, who, as I understand, are now opposing this Bill, would be the last to desire to have a railway passing down their thoroughfare; we know that the road is already so very much congested that it is almost impossible for the cabs and omnibuses to pass along it. If neither overhead nor surface communication are available to us, the only way of relieving the traffic is by an underground railway. The population of London has increased during the last 24 years some 60 per cent., and I believe that the number of passengers who travel annually has increased some 700 per cent. The Committee of the House of Commons were quite alive to the necessity of proceeding with great caution, and they put into the Bill a clause by which no action was to be taken, and, indeed, no money was to be raised until three months after the City and Southwark subway had been completed, so that there might be some experience obtained before any steps were taken to make this underground railway. I should have liked individually if the Committee had forced the company to pay some compensation for the monopoly of the sub-soil, but that is a matter for Committee, and therefore is one which I will not introduce here. I think, also, that the arguments of the right rev. Prelate were entirely arguments which ought to have been introduced in Committee, and I hope, therefore, your Lordships

    1309
    will not assent to the Motion of the right rev. Prelate.
    THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK): My Lords, the question before your Lordships is so interesting and important, that perhaps I may be pardoned for suggesting a course which, if taken, might possibly meet the views of all the Members of your Lordships' House. It seems to me that, besides the interested parties in this matter, if one may call them so—that is to say, those who have the custody of the Cathedral—there is a very large interest outside among the public, who have a great regard for that building as an ornament and grace to the Metropolis. It seems to me, if we let this Bill go in the ordinary course before a Committee; if that Committee were called upon to make a special Report to us, in case they may find that the Rill may be safely passed without fear of harm being done to St. Paul's Cathedral, they should lay before us the grounds on which they have come to that conclusion. At present we are discussing the Bill entirely in the dark. I do not know anything of what passed in the House of Commons, nor have I had the means of making myself acquainted with it, and I suppose none of your Lordships are in a better position in that respect than myself. I am quite sure, however, that if we had the Report of a Committee before us, we could then judge whether or not the grounds on which the Committee had proceeded were such as we could endorse or approve, and in that way we should be able to vote with knowledge on the Third Reading. If, on the other hand, a Committee of your Lordships' House should conclude that there was no ground for going on with the railway, and if they saw no reason to pass the Preamble, the Bill would not come back to us. But if it does come back, it is very desirable, I think, that it should come back upon a Special Report upon which the House could act with knowledge.
    THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, in rising to support what has been said by the noble Viscount opposite, with regard to referring the Bill, I would only suggest that it does not require a special Report from the Committee. What I think would answer all purposes is, that
    1310
    there should be an Order to the Committee that the evidence before it, including the printed notes of the arguments, should be circulated among the Members of this House, and in that way we should have the whole case before us and be able to form a judgment upon it.
    EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I only wish to say a few words upon this Motion. Many years ago, when there were urgent whips and great canvassing among Members of Parliament for the purpose of passing or rejecting Bills on Second Reading—Railway Bills particularly—and a Committee was appointed to consider the private business of the other House, I had the honour of being a member of that Committee. At this distance of time I have the liveliest recollection of the impression which I then carried away; that is, how extremely undesirable it was that, except in cases where the clearest principles were at stake for either House of Parliament to attempt to discuss points of engineering science, or to deal with matters which could only be satisfactorily dealt with before a Committee. The evils of the other system are palpable, and the conclusion which I entreat your Lordships to come to is, as there is no question of principle involved here, to give this Bill a Second Reading, and then to let it go before one of your Lordships' Committees, where it can be freely discussed and serutinised and evidence taken upon it.
    THE BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I do not know that I should not be wise to accept the advice of the noble Viscount to refer the Bill for a special Report as to the absence of danger. I should, of course, reserve to myself the right of opposing the further progress of the Bill, if it should appear to me that the decision of the Committee was not quite in accordance with the wisest course.
    Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn: Bill read 2a, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

  HELIGOLAND.

    QUESTION.—OBSERVATIONS.
    THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I desire to ask the noble Marquess

    1311
    a question of which I have given him private notice. I understand it is not his intention to make any statement to the House to-day with reference to the Agreement, published in yesterday's papers, which has taken place between this country and Germany in regard to the cession of Heligoland. I understand that he is not in a position to make a complete statement on the subject to-day; and, that being so, I would venture to ask him the question for the purpose of obtaining information. It is this—Has he, before agreeing to the cession of Heligoland, consulted the Military and Naval Authorities in regard to the expediency of such cession? I would further ask him if any steps have been taken, or are in contemplation, to ascertain the wishes of the Heligolanders themselves with regard to that transfer? I would also ask, though I have not given the noble Marquess notice of the question and therefore he will deal with it as he thinks best, when and where the Heligoland Transfer Bill will be introduced, and when we may expect to have further Papers on the subject?
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, with respect to the first of the questions of the noble Earl, I have to reply that before coming to the decision which we have communicated to your Lordships we made ourselves acquainted with the opinions of those professional advisers who were in a position to give us advice upon the subject. The matter is more naval I should say than military. There are certain military points, but the naval question is the predominant one. With respect to the second question of the noble Earl, my answer must be in the negative. The plébiscite is not among the traditions of this country. We have not taken a plébiscite, and I see no necessity for doing so. At the same time, we have good ground for believing that if there has been expressed in past times any objection on the part of any of the inhabitants of Heligoland to this transfer, it has been mainly connected with the fear of a conscription; and if the noble Earl will read the Despatch which has been laid upon the Table he will observe that we have taken the precaution to stipulate that no person alive at the time of the cession shall be subject
    1312
    to obligatory military or naval service. With regard to the third question of the noble Earl as to the introduction of the Bill, I thought it would have been introduced into the House of Commons, but I see no objection to introducing it into this House. I doubt whether it can be laid on the Table until the Convention is signed, because naturally the Bill must refer to that. The Bill is necessarily a short one. With respect to Papers, I do not know what Papers the noble Earl speaks of; but, of course, any papers that we are able to lay before the House we shall be happy to place upon the Table. I presume the Convention is the principal Paper.

    HERRING FISHERY (SCOTLAND) ACT (1889) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 75.)
    Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
    CLERGY DISCIPLINE (IMMORALITY) BILL.
    A Bill for better enforcing church discipline in the case of crimes and other offences against morality—was presented by the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 134.)
    SHERIFFS (ASSIZES EXPENSES) BILL.
    An Act respecting the expenses of High Sheriffs in connection with assizes—Was presented by the Earl Camperdown; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 135.)
  SETTLED LAND BILL.—(No. 99.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
    LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I need detain your Lordships but a few moments in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, because it is so much a matter of detail that no doubt it will have to be considered in Committee. I should imagine there will be no objection to the Second Reading of the Bill. It has been prepared by the Incorporated Law Society, and is the result of the experience which has been obtained in the working of the Settled Land Act. Certain questions have arisen which it is desirable to settle, and it is considered expedient to give several powers which

    1313
    were not given in the first instance; but none of them are matters of very great gravity, or make any considerable change in the law. I do not propose to take your Lordships through every clause in the Bill, but merely to mention its principal provisions. Doubts have arisen where a rent-charge on the disentailment of an estate is created in favour of an eldest son when he is a disentailing party, whether that instrument is to be considered for the purposes of the Settled Land Act as constituting one instrument, together with the settlement proper, or whether it is to be regarded as an incumbrance. I think there is no doubt it was intended to be treated as part of the settlement; but doubt has arisen, and the 1st clause to which I will refer, Clause 4 of the Bill, removes that doubt, and provides that it shall be treated as one instrument. Under the Settled Land Act there is power on a sale under the Act to reserve an easement, but there is no power to do so when it is an exchange or partition, and not a sale. The same power is now reserved equally in that case. The next provision is to enable a tenant for life to carry out a contract which has been entered into by his predecessor in title. Before the transaction can be carried out under the contract, a sale may be made; but, pending its completion, if the vendor dies the proceedings would at present have to be taken all over again. Under this clause power is given to continue the proceedings and to convey the estate. Then the next provision makes this alteration: At present a lease can only be granted by the tenant for life after notice has been given to the Trustees of the settlement. The 7th clause in the Bill enables a lease, if it is for 21 years or less and at a rack-rent, to be made by the tenant for life without notice to the Trustees. Then there is a provision relating to the mansion house. Your Lordships are aware that there is an exception from the power of the tenant for life to sell under the Settled Land Act in that respect: he is unable to sell the mansion house. The 9th clause leaves that generally untouched, but it provides—
    "Where a house is usually occupied as a farmhouse, or where the site of any house and the pleasure grounds and park and lands (if any) usually occupied therewith do not together
    1314
    exceed one hundred acres in extent, the house is not to be deemed a principal mansion house within the meaning of this section."
    The next provision is one on which some question may possibly be raised. At present the tenant for life can sell land that is settled for the purpose of expending the money for which the land is so sold upon improvements as defined by the Settled Land Act. The 10th clause of the Bill proposes to enable a tenant for life to raise money by mortgage for those same purpose instead of selling a portion of the estate. Sometimes the sum required is very small, and the difficulty of selling a small portion of the estate for the purpose of raising the necessary money is great. It would be a very considerable convenience to the tenant for life, and an advantage to the estate itself if such sum could be raised by mortgage, instead of by the sale of a portion of the real estate. It does not alter the mode in which the money is to be applied. It would be useful also for another purpose. At present, if there are mortgages and charges upon an estate, a tenant for life may sell for the purpose of paying them off, but he could not re-mortgage the estate for the purpose of consolidating the mortgages and, perhaps, raising the money required for the purpose at a lower rate of interest than that payable under the existing mortgages. Your Lordships are aware that many estates may be charged with mortgages bearing interest considerably in excess of the rate at which borrowing could now take place, nevertheless the tenant for life is precluded from making a fresh borrowing for the purpose of paying off mortgages, though he could do so at a lower rate of interest. This clause is intended to give him that power. Then, the next provision is merely a matter of machinery, and I need not trouble your Lordships with it. The 12th clause extends in some measure the improvements upon which settled money may be expended; one is the construction of bridges which are necessary for the purpose of the estate, which are not now included; and the next provision enables the money to be expended in putting the estate into a condition in which it may reasonably be let to the best advantage. Then the 13th clause enables the Court, if it thinks fit, where

    1315
    money has been paid into Court, to order payment of it out to the Trustees. At present, when money once gets into Court, it cannot be got out again; whereas, under this provision, the Court may order it if it thinks fit. There is only one other clause with which I need trouble your Lordships. That provides that where there are no Trustees of the settlement within the meaning of the Act the persons here named shall be the Trustees. The persons named in the Bill are those who, when application is made to the Court, are the people who would be appointed. This provision is only to save the necessity of applying to the Court in each case to appoint Trustees, and it does not make any substantial change. It is only for the purpose of avoiding the expense of an application to the Court. Now, those are all the provisions of the Bill with which I need trouble your Lordships. No doubt they will have to receive more consideration when in Committe, and I trust your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am bound to say that, with regard to the greater part of this Bill, I am entirely in accord. I think a great many of its provisions will be useful amendments of the law. But there is one matter which I should like to refer to for a moment in regard to the 10th section of the Bill. That seems to me to be absolutely inconsistent with the whole policy of the Settled Land Act. By that Act, as your Lordships are no doubt aware, the tenant for life may, acting, as it were, for the person next in remainder, because he is improving the estate for him, sell portions of the estate for the purpose of obtaining money to enable him to carry out improvements. But the policy of allowing a tenant for life to mortgage for such purposes appears to me to raise very serious questions indeed, and I doubt whether so great on alteration should be made except upon a full discussion of the question after the Bill has been referred to Committee. It appears to me there are plenty of purposes for which a tenant for life may improve the estate, and he has power to raise money by sale for that purpose; but this Bill would give additional powers
    1316
    which ought to be very carefully considered before your Lordships agree that the tenant for life should be able, not only to sell part of the estate so that the next in remainder shall come into possession of an improved property, an estate increased in value, but that the next in remainder may possibly find he has come into possession of an estate encumbered by mortgages, which, if he could have been consulted, he would not have agreed to. That, my Lords, seems to me to raise a serious question of principle which your Lordships should look at and consider carefully apart from any question upon mere details; and I should think that the proper time to do so would be when the Bill comes back, if the Bill should come back from the Committee unamended in that respect. It would be then for your Lordships, sitting in Committee of the whole House, to consider that question.
    EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I should like, as an ignorant and humble layman, to ask the noble and learned Lord for a little information with regard to the 9th clause, Sub-section 3. That clause appears to exempt from the restrictions originally imposed by the Settled Land Act, 1882, two classes of houses; one where a house is usually occupied as a farmhouse, and the other where the site of any house and the pleasure grounds, and park, and lands usually occupied therewith, do not together exceed 100 acres in extent. When that is the case, as I read the Bill, those two classes of houses are capable of being sold, at the will of the tenant for life. If that be the right interpretation, it appears to me this Bill strikes at the root of the restrictions imposed in the Settled Land Act of 1882. There may be great ambiguity in the words "usually occupied as a farmhouse.' The tenant for life may be on bad terms with his heir; he may waste the estate, and may cause the mansion house to be occupied as a farmhouse; and that may go on for a long period, for his life may not be a short one. So much for the words "usually occupied as a farmhouse" Then the second category seems to me to be still more objectionable. It is, I think, very insidious, because it provides that this may be done—

    1317
    "Where the site of any house, and the pleasure grounds, and park, and lands (if any) usually occupied therewith do not together exceed 100 acres in extent."
    My Lords, I do not know the exact acreage of the various parks throughout the country; but there, again, it would he open to the tenant for life, as it seems to me, to reduce the size of his park, and then, when that reduction has been made and has existed for a greater or longer period, that is also to be taken out of the category of a principal mansion house within the meaning of the original Act, so as to deal with that portion of the property without consulting the wishes of those entitled in remainder. My Lords, if I am right in my interpretation of this clause, the number of mansion houses which would be left unaffected in regard to the restrictions imposed by the Settled Land Act, would be so small that it would be better to repeal those provisions altogether than to leave them in existence as provisions which are altogether illusory. I may be wrong, of course, in this: but it appears to me there is no such source of danger as there being supposed to exist a protection which is illusory. If my interpretation is correct, this clause, though it may seem thoroughly satisfactory upon paper, yet, when tested by the rapacity which does sometimes exist in the case of a tenant for life, and which must ex hypothesi exist, will really prove very mischievous, and render the protection which is supposed to be given of no value at all. I shall be very glad to hear from the noble and learned Lord that I am mistaken in my interpretation; but if I am not, then I think it would be a far more straightforward course to move at once for the repeal of the restrictions in this respect under the Settled Land Act, rather than to leave laymen under the impression that they enjoy a security which it will be found they really do not enjoy as against a hostile tenant for life.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, f think it says very much for the humility of human nature, considering that we are all, or nearly all of us, tenants for life, to find what a deep distrust we seem to have of people in that position. We appear to consider that they are always about, or are willing, to commit some great crime, but I think
    1318
    tenants for life are a better class, on the whole, than my noble Friend Earl Beauchamp may think. What I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord opposite is, whether there are any means of defining what comes under the description of pleasure grounds and park. I have often, myself, seen cases where, if the grass in a man's park is not going on well, he will put it under turnips. Does it cease to be a park then? Viewing the matter in that way, the limitation appears to be one that nobody could rely upon, and, I think, might mislead.
    LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, with reference to the question which has been asked by the noble Earl, I would first state, generally, what the object of this section is. The language of the Settled Land Act is, that "it is not to apply to the principal mansion house (if any) or the settled land." That, obviously, was not intended to cover every house, however small, but was to be applied in the spirit of it to the residence in connection with the land. However small it was, that was the principle of it. It was supposed to apply to cases of an estate of some considerable character or size having such a house upon it. Now, the scheme of this section is, that where in reality it does not come within the spirit of the Settled Land Act, where you have a house occupied with only a small portion of land attached, that then it should not be regarded as a principal mansion house within the meaning of the Act. Of course, it may be considered that the area of 100 acres taken here is too large, and that it ought to be reduced. That is a matter of detail which I will not go into at present; but I will say, in answer to the question of the noble Earl, that I do not think any tenant for life, by altering the character of the holding, and by saying that any portion of the property had been usually occupied in a particular way, could' bring himself within the section and so entitles himself to sell. I think, in considering for what purpose that portion of the property has been usually occupied, you would have to look to the period during which, and the purposes for which, the land had been held with the house in the past, and not how it happened to be occupied at the particular moment. With regard to the

    1319
    question of the noble Marquess, I would point out that the provision is not with regard merely to pleasure grounds and parks, but that it is land usually held with, the house; that is, throughout. If a portion 0f what had been a park was turned into something which was not strictly park, yet, if it was part of the land which had been usually held with the house, it would still come within those words, although it had ceased to be park and then filled some other character. The provision is that, notwithstanding the Act of 1882,
    "The principal mansion house (if any) on any settled land, and the pleasure grounds and park and lands (if any) usually occupied therewith, shall not he sold, exchanged, or leased by the tenant for life without the consent of the trustees of the settlement or an order of the Court."
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then, if a man farms the whole of his land, he cannot sell it.
    LORD HERSCHELL: In that case, if it exceeded that amount, he could not sell without the leave of the Court. It would come under the restrictions of the Settled Land Act. At present the mansion house can only be sold under the order of the Court. The power of the tenant for life is limited if the lands usually held with the house exceed the 100 acres, as provided, for whatever purposes they might be occupied. That case would come within the scope of the Act and not within the exceptions.
    EAUL BEAUCHAMP: Do I understand the noble and learned Lord to say that a tenant for life, having let his park, which is not at all unfrequently the case, for a term of years, as he is entitled to do, the principal mansion house and the whole estate would be then exempted from the restrictions of the Settled Land Act, but little land being actually occupied with the mansion house, so that he might sell the principal mansion house of a very large and ornamental estate without consulting the remainder-man?
    LORD HERSCHELL: I do not think he would. It certainly was not intended that he should. However, after what the noble Earl has said, I may say that I shall take care, if possible, to see that that point is made clear.
    Bill read 2a (according to order).
    LORD HERSCHELL: I now move that this Bill be committed to the Stand-
    1320
    ing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.
    EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, this is, I think, a matter which your Lordships ought to consider in Committee of the whole House. Of course, there are technical points to be dealt with; but I would point out that this is a matter which concerns your Lordships as landowners. Is it not a matter in which, before the details are settled, your Lordships should agree upon the principle involved in the clauses of this Bill? I hope your Lordships will send the Bill to a Committee of the whole House, and then it can afterwards, if necessary, be referred to the Standing Committee on Law.
    LORD HERSCHELL: Surely that is hardly necessary. Nine-tenths of this Bill refer to technical matters of detail in which there is no question of principle involved, and surely it would be better to consider the Bill in Standing Committee, and then, when it comes back to your Lordships, it will be in the form in which it has been finally settled. The noble Earl himself has already suggested that even if this 9th clause be right in principle, it ought to be altered in form. Surely the measure ought to be put in the best form for the consideration of the House, and then, when it comes back to the Committee of the whole House, it will be for your Lordships to omit any of the clauses or amend them. That seems to be a more reasonable course than to consider it now in Committee of the whole House. Your Lordships will then have a carefully-prepared draft before you.
    EARL BEAUCHAMP: I do not know that I have any right to reply; but, as far as the drafting is concerned, I have that confidence in the noble and learned Lord that I do not know that whatever may be done in this Committee will improve his handiwork.
    Bill committed to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.

  FOREIGN JURISDICTION (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.—(No. 109.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is merely a Consolidation Bill upon the

    1321
    subject of foreign jurisdiction. As the object of it is merely to consolidate the Acts of Parliament, I anticipate no objection. Under ordinary circumstances, I should ask your Lordships to take this Bill in Committee of the whole House; but as it involves, by reason of the consolidation, some small Amendments of the law, I think it would be better that it should go before the Committee on Law.
    Read 2a (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, etc.

    EDUCATION OF BLIND AND DEAF-MUTE CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 123.)
    Read 3a (according to order); Amendments made; Bill passed and sent to the Commons.
  KEW AND PETERSHAM VICARAGE BILL.—(No. 77.)

    MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 119.)
    House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order); Bills reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a to-morrow.
    House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock till to-morrow a quarter past Ten o'clock.