Sitting of 26 June 1890

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  LONDON OVERHEAD WIRES BILL—(by Order.)
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE (Kensington, N.): I rise to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be considered upon this day six months. I admit, at once, the inconvenience of moving the rejection of a Bill at this stage, and, therefore, it is necessary that I should explain at once why many metropolitan

  23
  Members regard it as their bounden duty, notwithstanding that the measure has received the approval of a Select Committee, to offer to it an uncompromising resistance. It is one of the penalties which arise from the devolution of Private Bills to Select Committees, that on certain occasions it becomes necessary to raise a discussion in regard to them in the House itself.
  SIR W. PLOWDEN (Wolverhampton, W.),speaking from the Front Opposition Bench below the Gangway: I rise to a point of order. I wish to draw your attention, Sir, to the inconvenience of having the floor of the House occupied by a new contrivance connected with the presentation of Petitions, which renders it impossible for Members sitting here to see or hear what is taking place. [The hon. Gentleman alluded to the fact that the centre of the floor of the House from the Bar to the Table was occupied by a series of wooden boxes of a cylindrical form, containing a Petition awaiting presentation in favour of the Local Taxation Bill.]
  MR. SPEAKER: I had no idea that the Petition would have assumed such large proportions. I have already given directions that immediately after the Private Business shall have been disposed of, the Petition shall be removed. The House will see that the framework adds largely to the proportion of the Petition.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: Before I was interrupted I was placing before the House the conditions which render it the bounden duty of the metropolitan Members to offer astrenuous resistance to this Bill, even at this late stage. We had hoped that the Select Committee would have safeguarded the rights of the residents of the Metropolis against the undue intrusion of officials upon what has always been regarded as private property. This Bill confers upon the officials of the London County Council powers of compulsorily interfering with the rights of private individuals such as, I venture to say, have never before been authorised by this House except under the gravest and most special circumstances. They are powers which may probably have been given by a warrant, but a warrant can only be issued in circumstances of a very special character. No doubt an interference
  24
  with the rights of private property for private objects can be made by a special Act of Parliament, passed pro hâc vice for a particular purpose. This Bill proposes to give for all time to come to the officials of the London County Council power compulsorily to enter upon private premises, in order to put up and to extend overhead wires, not only upon one occasion and for one purpose, but for all eternity. I believe that such extraordinary powers have never yet been asked for in a Bill of this kind, and I trust that the House of Commons will never consent to grant such powers to any bureaucracy or any official person whatsoever. I hope that no attempt will be made, on either side of the House, to make this a Party question, or in any way to regard the Motion which I now respectfully submit as in any way tending to an expression of distrust in the London County Council. I am one of those who have the fullest faith in the future of the County Councils of this Kingdom, and certainly in the future of the London County Council, and in the wisdom and discretion which will be shown by that important body which this House has clothed, and rightly clothed, I think, with full Local Authority in the Metropolis. At the same time, I am bound to admit that the existing London County Council may possibly have laid itself open in some measure to a charge of interfering with matters which hardly, at this time, or at this stage of its existence, come rightly within its purview. I regard it, however, as youthful arrogance on the part of the London County Council, and I entertain the hope that future Councils will learn wisdom by experience, and will avoid the errors which the present Council has committed, mainly by reason of its youthfulness and inexperience. I wish it to be thoroughly understood that the metropolitan Members, in resisting this Bill, are acting in no sense in opposition to, or from distrust of, the London County Council. We object to any officials, whether they are connected with the London County Council or any other authority, having conferred upon them for all time the inquisitorial powers which are proposed to be conferred by this Bill. It may be alleged by those who are promoting the Bill that some means must be found for enabling the

  25
  necessary communications for telephonic wires to be made; but I think it is wise for those who are promoting schemes of this nature to submit to the House some proposal against which the same objections will not apply, and which will not interfere, in the same way, with private rights. One of the reasons why the Bill was not opposed in its earlier stages was that it came before the House simply as a Subway Bill, which proposed to carry telephonic and other wires through the congested thoroughfares of the Metropolis by means of subways. I admit that this would have involved a larger outlay, but it would have been more consistent with the convenience of the residents of the Metropolis. I confess that, personally, I had no idea when I heard of a Subway Bill that there was any intention of empowering the officials of the London County Council to come into all our houses and put up these wires. That, I think, is the main reason why the progress of the Bill was not opposed in its earlier stages; and if it were still proposed to deal with these wires by means of subways our objections to the measure might be overcome. The Bill has now assumed a very different form, and many important Local Bodies in the Metropolis have signified the strongest objection to its provisions in its present form. I speak here as the representative of my own Vestry—the Vestry of St. Mary Abbots, Kensington, and it will be within the knowledge of many Members of the House that a considerable number of the other Local Authorities in the Metropolis have pronounced a similar opinion—even such important bodies as the Benchers of the Inner and Middle Temple. Therefore, I venture to submit that although it is a somewhat late period at which to bring forward objections, yet, considering that the measure was introduced under another name, and under a guise in which its real purpose could not be suspected, I have no alternative but to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.): I beg to second the proposal of my hon. Friend, that the Bill be read a second time on this day six months. It does seem to me a somewhat startling thing that, under the name of a Subway Bill, we should be asked to pass a
  26
  measure which is to enable the Local Authorities in London to enter the house of every inhabitant.
  SIR T. ESMONDE (Dublin County, S.)speaking from the lower end of the Front Opposition Bench below the Gangway: May I ask, Sir, as a matter of order, that you would direct the removal of the obstruction which is now blocking up the floor of the House? Alf I can say is that we on this side do not know who the hon. Member is who is addressing the House.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I have already answered the question in regard to this Petition. I am sorry that hon. Members are suffering inconvenience, but I hope that they will put up with the inconvenience for a few minutes longer. It shall be removed as soon a3 the Private Business is disposed of.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Will the hon. Member stand on one of these things (pointing to the wooden cylinders containing the Petition)?
  *MR. BARTLEY(removing from his place on the floor of the House to a seat behind the Ministerial Bench) continued his speech: I am afraid—he said—that the houses of the Metropolis will be similarly inconvenienced and obstructed when they are covered with these telephone poles. I had the honour on one occasion of having one of them put upon my house, and, therefore, I know what they are. This Bill proposes to enable the authorities to erect a telephone pole whether the owner or occupier likes it or not. It is the beginning of a very singular state of legislation for the Metropolis, and what will be the result when electric lighting becomes general, is, I think, a matter for very serious consideration. Whether the owner or occupier is a consenting party or not it is proposed that the Local Authority shall have power compulsorily to put up these poles and wires. Clause 11 of the Bill contains a most extraordinary provision. It authorises the erection of poles and wires against the will of the occupier, but at the end of the lease the owner may require them to be taken down. There is even a worse provision in the Bill, empowering the County Council or the Local Authority to enter a man's house at any hour in order to superintend these overhead wires.
  *MR. H, LAWSON (St. Pancras, W.): To inspect them.
  *MR. BARTLEY: The hon. Member docs not say what the inspection is to be. If he does not know, my own personal experience will enable me to tell him. At any hour, whether the occupier is ill or well, whether his wife is ill or well, or whether anything is happening in the House, the officers of the County Council are to have the right to send workmen into the House, cause them to go upstairs, make use of his private apartments, get upon the roof, and walk about the slates. I had, on one occasion, a very long pole placed on the top of my house, and I found that at all hours, and pretty nearly on every day of the week, work people were engaged in superintending it, or inspecting, or whatever the hon. Member opposite likes to call it. In fact, workmen were walking up and down my stairs every hour of the day. The only reason that can be urged for accepting the Bill, is that it has already been passed by a Select Committee. As a general rule, that is a valid reason for accepting a Private Bill, but on this occasion, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington (Sir Roper Lethbridge), that there are substantial grounds why that reason should not be allowed to apply. The measure was brought in as a Subway Bill, and, in my opinion, it is only by means of subways we can get rid of the nuisance that is created by the extension of these wires through the streets of the Metropolis. If it is necessary to take houses for the erection of telephone wires, they ought to be purchased in the ordinary way. It may be said that there already exists a means of providing compensation, but the compensation is most inadequate, and fails to meet the necessities of the case. The ordinary payment for a pole is a guinea a year, but a payment of 2 guineas, or 5 or 10, would be no consideration compared with the nuisance inflicted upon the occupier of a house by these private trading companies having the right of entering his premises. I venture to think that the House were to a certain extent deluded when they allowed the Bill to be read a second time. It would never have been read a second time if it had stood as it does at present. I sincerely trust that the House will throw out the measure.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Sir Roper Leth-bridye.)
  Question proposed, "That the word ' now ' stand part of the Question."
  MR. CHILDERS (Edinburgh, S.): I wish to raise a point of order. The business of the House is seriously impeded by the cylindrical wheels which are now blocking up the floor of the House. They are most inconvenient, and I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, whether they ought not to be removed.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The Private Business is lasting a longer time than I anticipated it would. I have already stated that it is obviously inconvenient that the Petition should be allowed to remain on the floor of the House; and will ask the officers of the House to have it removed at once.
  MR. MACNEILL (Donegal, S.): Has any one examined the contents, or will it be open to any hon. Member to do so?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The contents will be examined by the Committee on Public Petitions. [The Petition was then rolled out in detachments, by the officers of the House.]
  SIR J. BAILEY: It was my fortune to act as Chairman of the Committee, but although the Committee are in no way responsible for the title of the Bill when it was first brought into the House, I think it is fair to say that there was nothing in the title which was intended to deceive. Originally it was a Bill to enable the County Council of London to make subways through the Metropolis, and to possess certain powers over overhead wires. The power to make subways was met with strenuous opposition from every vestry in the Metropolis, and that power was consequently cut out of the Bill before it came to the Committee. The hon. Member who spoke for the Kensington Vestry, ought, I think, to know that the Committee did not accept the Bill in the shape in which it first came before them, giving the London County Council power over the streets of the entire Metropolis. It struck that provision out of the measure, making the County Council responsible only for the framing

  29
  of by-laws, and giving to the Vestries and Local Boards the duty of looking after and controlling overhead wires. The Bill, in its present shape, proposes to carry out the Report of the Select Committee which sat in the year 1885, and, with the permission of the House, I will read a few words from that Report to show what the opinion of that Committee was. The Committee say that the risk of danger to the public from overhead wires had been greatly exaggerated, but they were of opinion the probable development of the telephonic system made it desirable that there should be some change in the law relating to the control over wires, with a view to their better supervision. Dealing with telephonic wires, they say, at the end of their Report, that they were of opinion that, under proper regulations, permission should be given to pass wires over property without the owners having the right of prohibition; but that the facilities afforded should confer no vested interest. With regard to "attachment," that can only now be made with the consent of the occupier and owner; but powers are proposed to be conferred in certain cases where it is impossible to obtain access to premises for the purpose of connecting them with a general telephonic system, owing to the refusal of an individual to permit the attachment. The Committee say that they are of opinion that in special cases where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Local Authorities, on investigation, that particular individuals or districts are deprived of the public convenience of telephoniccommunication owing to such refusal, the Local Authority shall be authorised to give permission to attach wires to premises, under suitable regulations, and on the payment of such compensation as the Local Authority may deem just. This Bill simply carries out the recommendations of the Select Committee. The Committee upstairs have most carefully considered and safeguarded the interests of all the householders in London, and the fears which have been expressed by two of the metropolitan Representatives appear to me to be absolutely without foundation. It is said that the Bill will empower the Council's officers by day or night to enter into private houses. Now, one of the great dangers of the overhead wires is
  30
  that there are in London a great number of derelict wires, which have been used in former times, but are now abandoned, and, therefore, it is most necessary that workmen should be appointed by the Local Authorities to deal with them, as it is obviously ridiculous to expect an Inspector to inspect them through a telescope. Clause 8 of the Bill provides that the Inspector of the Council may enter a private house provided he is iii uniform, and is duly authorised in writing by the Local Authority, and provided that notice shall have been previously given. The Inspector' may then enter at some reasonable time to be named by the occupier. The rights of householders being thus most stringently guarded, I hope the Bill will be now considered.
  MR. H. LAWSON: As one of the Members in charge of the Bill, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words. The hon. Member who has moved the rejection has availed himself of the opportunity to attack the London County Council, and I think that fact affords an explanation of the motives by which those who are opposing the measure are actuated.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: I especially disclaimed any such intention.
  *MR. H. LAWSON: The House will be able to judge for itself whether I am right or not. These attacks are becoming a little stale, and they show the jealous hostility of some Metropolitan Members to the body which has succeeded the Metropolitan Board of Works, for which they retain a lingering affection. The London County Council has had very little to do with the drafting of the Bill. The question is one of public safety and convenience. As the Chairman of the Committee has already told the House, it mainly carries out the recommendations of the Committee presided over by Mr. George Russell, who sat in 1885, and contained three metropolitan representatives, as well as Sir J. M'Garel Hogg, the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works. I believe that now, as well as then, the House is' agreed upon facilitating the development of the telephone system. The hon. Member for Kensington has painted an alarming picture of the officers of the Council entering houses at any hour of the day or night,

  31
  putting sick persons to inconvenience, and annoying the inhabitants. But if there are to be telephone wires it is absolutely essential that they should be inspected.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: Place them in subways.
  *MR. H. LAWSON: It is absolutely impossible to force the telephone wires into subways everywhere, first, because out of 1,200 miles of metropolitan streets and roads there are only 8½ miles of subway; secondly, because of the difficulty of putting high and low tension wires together. Moreover, the by-laws of the County Council will have to be approved by the Board of Trade and enforced by the District Authorities. The title of the Bill has not been changed, as some hon. Members suggest. The original title was "London Subways and Overhead Wires Bill," and the word "subways" has been dropped because that subject no longer has a place in the Bill. There could be no better arrangement than that the overhead wires should be placed under the Central Authority for London, acting through the various District Authorities. The objection to Clause 11, which gives power to attach wires upon private property, is frivolous, as it will only be exercised where an unreasonable objection is taken by the owner or occupier subject to arbitration.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: The Member for Hereford stated that the Committee was entirely composed of householders, but he did not state that any one of them had ever given permission for a pole to be placed upon his house. I should like to mention my own experience in regard to telephone wires. Unfortunately, I gave a telephone company permission to put a wire over my house, and from that time the House was never my own. The Inspectors were always in and out, my stair carpets were worn out, and my silver had to be constantly locked up for fear it should be stolen. The pole, moreover, was fixed so badly that considerable damage was done to the roof of the house, by the action of the wind upon the pole. The company declined to repair the damage, and it cost me £50 to put the roof in order, when I applied for the removal of the pole. To that
  32
  inconvenience every person will be subjected who has wires fixed to his house, and I protest against its being done, whether an owner or occupier objects to its being done or not. The question is not altogether one of erecting telephone wires, but of electric lighting wires, with the erection of which we are threatened all over London, and which is a very much more serious matter. We are now in the infancy of the system, and yet we have already realised that these wires greatly increase the risk of fire, a proof of which is that the insurance offices have raised the rates for property to which electric lighting wires have been fixed. In other countries, Sweden and America particularly, where such wires have been brought into requisition, the companies are compelled to have stations in various parts of the town or city from which the wires are run, and as this is a matter promoted by a company for private interests I think the promoters should be compelled to purchase fairly the rights they require, or demand, for carrying out their undertaking. It would be most arbitrary and unjust that they should have the power to interfere with the rights and convenience of the public without any consideration, and I hope the House will reject this ill-digested scheme, I think it would be altogether revolutionary to do away with the idea that an Englishman's house is his castle, and to authorise officers of the County Council to enter a man's premises, whether he likes it or not.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I wish to point out that if this Bill passes an entirely new departure in legislation will be made, for under whatever authority the Bill is applied it will give an arbitrary power of interference with property, whether the owner objects or not, and without compensation. Every occupier or owner ought to have the right to object to anything being done to his property, reasonable or unreasonable, subject only to this—that if the objection taken is against the general good he must give up his right on fair compensation. But the Bill provides no such condition as this, and by Clause 2 a man may have his property interfered with without his consent, and those interfering with him may even claim to judge whether his objection is reasonable or not. Is the House going, for the first

  33
  time in the history of English legislation, to say that an occupier is not to be an occupier to the full extent which he believed he was when he entered into his property? The objections to the Bill are serious, and I trust it will be rejected.
  SIR H. SELWIN-IBBETSON: There is yet another objection to be urged against the Bill. Since the introduction of the electric lighting system in recent times the number of attempts to enter private houses under false pretences by persons describing themselves as Inspectors has enormously increased, and I fear the Bill will enhance the danger. There will be constant applications from persons describing themselves as Inspectors, who will enter your houses, and do very much what they like with your property. In my own case applications of this kind have been made, but the Cerberus in charge of the premises was a little sharper than is usually the case, and the applicants were not admitted. One wanted to look at the gas, and another to inspect the electric lighting, which did not exist.
  MR. H. GLADSTONE (Leeds, W.): I think that the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman as well as the speech of the hon. Member for the Uxbridge Division are in favour of the Bill, which proposes to set up a proper system of supervision in regard to overhead wires. The Committee very carefully considered all the clauses of the Bill, they were unanimous upon the matter, and they have safeguarded the interests of private householders. To those hon. Members who say that we are giving new powers to the County Council, if they will refer to the Bill they will see that the Board of Trade will have a controlling voice in the bylaws to be administered by the County Council. The hon. Member for Northampton spoke of a new departure. That may be so in one sense, but the system of putting up overhead wires has been increasing of late years by leaps and bounds.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I did not say that it was a new departure in reference to overhead wires, but that it was anew departure in legislation as to the mode of dealing with a person's property without compensation.
  *MR. H. GLADSTONE: It is for the House to say whether this is not necessarily a new departure in order to meet a new condition of things. In cases where the public convenience is concerned the Legislature has already interfered with private rights, as, for example, in the painting and cleansing of houses, and in other respects, on behalf of general convenience. I hold that public interest and necessity justifies this Bill, and I sincerely hope that the House will reject the Amendment.
  *MR. R. G.WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.): It is too much the habit of certain hon. Members to say when we desire to look into a measure promoted by the London County Council fairly and equitably, that we are attacking that Council. The County Council must not imagine that its measures are to be exempt from the criticism which Parliament exercises in all other Bills promoted by other bodies. Now, no one can, I imagine, object to the clause which deals with derelict wires. This Bill is not a permissive but a compulsory measure. It gives powers to the authorities to say to the householder you shall have posts or polls placed on your house whether you like it or not; and, further, you shall have the wires that run through your premises inspected from time to time. No doubt this power is to be exercised under certain restrictions, but none the less it is a completely new departure, and one to be carefully watched. A Londoner does not wish his house to be considered his castle, but at any rate his home. But it is said that the men who are to inspect these wires are to produce duly signed credentials, and wear the uniform of the County Council (whatever that may be). Even that privilege does not seem an attractive one to the householder. This is no attack on the County Council. Did we wish to attack that body the heavy increase in the rating under its regime would offer a more vulnerable point of attack than its action in the various and varied measures it has introduced to the notice of this House. This Bill is one which confers extraordinary powers upon the Council, and I oppose it as a new and great departure.
  SIR J. LUBBOCK: I hope that the opposi-

  35
  tion to this Bill is not an attack on the London County Council, but an endeavour to regulate overhead wires. The opponents of the Bill, however, attack solely two of its clauses, and it would surely be unreasonable to throw out the whole Bill on account of two clauses. As regards Clause 11, the hon. Member for Northampton says that the authority seeking the right to put up a pole is itself to determine whether a refusal was unreasonable. That is not so; the London County Council are not owners of overhead wires, and have no interest except that of the public. Then, as regards Clause 8, it is objected that the officers of the London County Council ought not to have any right of entry; but if the duty of inspection is imposed On them they must have some right of entry. The Bill has been characterised by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) as an ill-digested measure, but it is a Bill which has been recommended by two Committees of this House, and I hope the House will support the Committee.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I am afraid that I shall be under the painful necessity of having to go into the opposite Lobby to my hon. Colleague. There is a good deal of force in what he has said, but I consider that all London matters should be handed over to the London Council. I want to wash my hands entirely of all London matters as far as this House is concerned. This is a question which concerns the ratepayers of this Metropolis, and it is for the County Council to settle it.
  MR. COURTNEY: I should be very sorry to see everything connected with the Metropolis left to the uncontrolled discretion of the County Council. This Bill has been considered by a Committee of this House, and no one could have listened to the speech of the hon. Baronet who presided over that Committee without feeling impressed with the care that has been given to the subject. I hope, therefore, that the House will not reject, in this summary manner, what has been agreed to by the Committee. Another reason why we should reject this Amendment is that the strongest objection against the Bill has been brought by the hon. Member for Northampton, who objects to one clause of it only. But
  36
  even if that clause were struck out, there is much that is valuable left in the Bill, to which no substantial objection can be taken. The Bill deals with the natural state of facts, namely, that there are a great number of overhead wires in London which form a source of danger and inconvenience to the inhabitants of the Metropolis, and it is most desirable that some authority should look after the wires. I venture to submit that Clause 8, which has been objected to, is a very reasonable way of dealing with the question of wires already in existence, attached to houses by the permission of the owners and occupiers.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: I have not the slightest objection to the provisions dealing with the case where the owner gives permission; what I object to is the provision that poles may be erected whether the owner likes it or not.
  MR. COURTNEY: What the hon., Member objects to is the subsequent clause, which raises a separate issue, and should be disposed of by itself. I contend that the Bill is a very valuable provision for looking after a danger which everybody knows exists. I admit that the power to put up a pole against the will of the owner of the house is a considerable step in advance, but I hope the House will not reject the Bill on account of this one item.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: That power forms the essence of the Bill; or if it is not the essence it is quite as important as all the other provisions.
  MR. COURTNEY: I submit that this is not so at all. With respect to that point, which forms the subject of a separate clause, I think it is essential that there should be some authority able to say whether these poles should be set up. The authority appointed by the Bill is the County Council, which has no private interest in the matter, and would only act as the guardian of the public interests. They can give notice to a person who, in their opinion, offers unreasonable objections, and if he continues to assert his objections the matter would he referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Board of Trade. Those who are so devoted to the rights of property as to want special leave for the erection of every pole, can, if they choose, move that this clause should be rejected;

  37
  but it is an entirely different thing to oppose a Bill which is admittedly a useful measure.
  GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY: The suggestion made by the Chairman of Ways and Means was conveyed to the promoters of the Bill; and personally I offered to withdraw my objections to the measure if it were accepted. The promoters, however, intimated that they were not in a position to accept it. We are not talking so much of keeping our houses as our castles as of preserving them as our homes.
  (4.15.) The House divided:—Ayes 200; Noes 203.—(Div. List, No. 159.)
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
  Consideration, as amended, put off for three months.

PETITION.

  THE LOCAL TAXATION (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) DUTIES BILL.
  MR. WHARTON (York, W. R., Ripon): I beg to present a Petition, signed by 600,000 inhabitants of Great Britain and Ireland, praying this House to pass the provisions of the Local Taxation Bill. I beg to apologise to you, Sir, and the House, for any inconvenience that may have been caused to Members by the presence of a Petition of this magnitude.
  SIR W. LAWSON: Should I be in order, Sir, in moving that the Petition be now read by the clerk at the Table?
  *MR. SPEAKER: I do not think it would be in order for the hon. Baronet to make such a Motion. It can be done if the hon. Member who presented the Petition desires it.

QUESTIONS.

  IRELAND—ASSAULT ON A CATHOLIC AT COOTEHILL.
  MR. KNOX (Cavan, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of three men, supposed to belong to the Orange Society,
  38
  who were, on the 14th instant, at Petty Sessions at Cootehill, convicted of a serious assault upon a Catholic, whom they met alone, and which it was proved was committed for no reason whatever except his religion, and without his having given any provocation; whether he is aware that the prisoners were let off with a fine; and under what head this occurrence will be mentioned in the Returns of outrages in Ireland?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): The facts appear to be substantially as stated in the first paragraph. The case was one of common assault dealt with summarily by Magistrates, and will not, therefore, appear in the Return of outrages.
  *MR. JOHNSTON (Belfast, W.): Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason for believing these men belonged to the Orange Society?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I Lave not made inquiries on that point.
  *MR. JOHNSTON: It is another slander.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  BOYCOTTING BY ORANGEMEN.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received any information regarding a meeting held by the Orangemen of Killeshandra on the 12th instant, which was called to consider the conduct of one of the "brethren," who had hired a car from Mr. Brady, a Nationalist; whether any of the Orangemen of the district have been "shadowed," on the ground that they are conspiring to prevent one of their body from doing that which ho has a legal right to do; and whether Mr. Brady's name will appear in the Return of persons boycotted in Ireland?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no certain information, but I understand that the meeting referred to was called to make preparations for the approaching July anniversary. It has not come to the knowledge of the police that any of the transactions at that meeting were illegal. None of the Orangemen in the district have been "shadowed," as the necessity for the adoption of such a course does not at present exist. So far as the police can ascertain, there is no ground for including Mr. Brady's name in the Return of persons boycotted.

  THE COMMISSION OF THE PEACE IN DUBLIN.
  MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the Petty Sessions district in which Mr. Thomas W. Russell, who was some since appointed to the Commission of the Peace for the County of Dublin, has elected to serve; whether Mr. Russell has any connection by property or otherwise with the Petty Sessions district in which he has elected to serve, or with any other part of the County of Dublin; and if Mr. Russell is not connected by property or otherwise with the County of Dublin, why he was appointed to the Commission of the Peace for that particular part of Ireland?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that the hon. Member to whom this question refers was appointed to the Commission of the Peace for the County of Dublin in the ordinary course on the recommendation of Lord Monck, the Lieutenant of the county, as a lit and proper person to be a Magistrate, and be elected to sit at the Rathfarnham Petty Sessions. His property and residence are situated in the City of Dublin, and Rathfarnham is a suburb of Dublin, and adjoins the metropolitan district.
  MR. CLANCY: Are we to understand that this gentleman has no connection with the County of Dublin?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is the connection that I have stated.
  MR. W. REDMOND (Fermanagh, N.): Do the Government intend to follow in future the precedent made in this case, and to bring Scotchmen over to Ireland to act as Magistrates?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know that a better precedent could be followed; but it does not rest with the Government to follow it, appointments of the kind being made on the recommendation of the Lieutenants of counties.
  MR. CLANCY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although the population of Dublin County is overwhelmingly Catholic, the great majority of the Magistrates are Protestant? There being plenty of Roman Catholic gentlemen in the County of Dublin who could be appointed, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why a gentle-
  40
  man who is not a Catholic and not a native has been appointed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No. This matter does net form part of my business.
  MR. CLANCY: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring under the notice of the Lord Lieutenant the fact that in Dublin County there are plenty of Catholics competent to act?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I repeat that that is no part of my business.

  A PORTUMNA APPEAL.
  MR. ROCHE (Galway, E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the report in the Freeman's Journal of 23rd June of the appeal heard at Portumna on Saturday last, of Mr. Lyons, a merchant of Portumna, and three other men, against a decision of Mr. Hickson, R.M., and Mr. Mayne, R.M., sentencing them to two months' imprisonment, and a rule of bail for alleged conspiracy to compel or induce a man named James Mitchel not to buy hay from a man named Dillon; whether he is aware that Mitchel, who was produced by the Crown as a witness, denied that the defendants had committed the offence, and that why he did not take the hay was "because he was disappointed about a horse to carry it away"; that the only other witness produced by the Crown was Dillon, who swore that he (Dillon) had previously been imprisoned for "breaking a neighbour's head with a shovel"; that the witnesses for the defence swore that the defendants were engaged on their legitimate business in the market on the day in question; whether he is aware that the same evidence was given at the trial before the Resident Magistrates, and that the County Court Judge of Galway (Mr. Henn, Q.C.), said—
  "He could not overrule the decision of the Magistrates, as he must assume they based their Judgment on a full and fair consideration of the evidence;"
  and whether, under the circumstances, and considering that the accused did not get the benefit of a Judgment based on the re-hearing, he will have inquiry made into the matter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The facts stated in the first paragraph are accurate. As regards the second paragraph, the

  41
  statement appears to me to be incorrect or misleading, but I do not propose to attempt to give a summing up of the evidence, or an analysis of the testimony of each witness. The County Court Judge did re-hear the case and did confirm the sentences, and I see no ground for further action.
  MR. CLANCY: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that Mitchel swore in Court what is stated in the question?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No. I said it was not a convenient practice to sum up evidence given by various witnesses in a case twice tried.
  MR. ROCHE: Has the right hon. Gentleman before him the information of the officials in Ireland?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have been supplied with some statements as to the evidence given in this case.

  SHADOWING BY POLICE.
  MR. CAREW (Kildare, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can explain why Mr. Nash, the Secretary of the Norwich Liberal Association, on his visit last week to the Clongorey Estate, in the County Kildare, was shadowed by the police all the way between New bridge and Clongorey; also, whether he is aware that the constable who followed the Rev. Mr. Macrae, and who was alleged to have been engaged on other business than shadowing, pursued the Rev. Mr. Macrae the whole length of his journey, stopping whenever he stopped, and immediately resuming his journey when the rev. gentleman moved on; and, if so, whether he still adheres to his statement that he was not shadowed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that a stranger having been observed driving with the President of the local branch of the National League in the direction of the Clongorey Estate, two policemen subsequently proceeded to the estate to ascertain if an illegal meeting was being held. The police, as a matter of fact, did not overtake them on the road, and appear to have travelled by a different route. It does not appear that Mr. Macrae was shadowed, or even observed, during the whole of his journey. How far he was followed on a bicycle during any part of his journey I do not know, but am inquiring. It must be
  42
  recollected that the Plan of Campaign and intimidation in their worst form are frequently promoted by strangers to the district in which they occur. If these crimes are prevalent in any particular locality the police are obviously- quite right to take sufficient note of the movement of strangers to enable them to interfere should it be necessary in the interest of the victims of these outrages. This is not shadowing, nor does it inflict the slightest annoyance on anyone.
  MR. CLANCY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Macrae has publicly stated that the policeman did follow him as stated in the question? What was the crime of which the Rev. Mr. Macrae was suspected?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have already stated that he was not suspected of any crime.
  MR. CLANCY: If he was not suspected, why was he shadowed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I read with great slowness and distinctness that part of my answer which dealt with the hon. Member's question.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Is the fact that a gentleman was a stranger in a district sufficient to warrant the police in dogging his footsteps?
  *MR. JOHNSTON: Do not the police follow persons for the purpose of protection?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Certainly the police often have to follow for protection purposes. As to the other question, in the first place, there is not a case, as far as I know, in any part of Ireland of a stranger having his footsteps dogged. It is, and must remain, the case in Ireland in those parts where the Plan of Campaign and intimidation exist, that any person who it is thought possible may encourage those forms of crime should be watched.
  MR. W. REDMOND: What grounds have the authorities in Ireland for supposing that Mr. Nash would be capable of encouraging such forms of intimidation and crime? Was there anything in the world against him except that he was a stranger?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no doubt that the gentleman is a model of every Christian virtue, but I have explained to the House the reasons that compel the authorities in some parts of Ireland to take notice of strangers.
  MR. CONYBEARE: The other day the right hon. Gentleman stated that no persons were shadowed unless there was sufficient reason to suspect that they were guilty of crime or were intending to commit some crime. Does the right hon. Gentleman adhere to that statement in view of the answer he has given with reference to the Rev. Mr. Macrae?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir; but I also said that Mr. Macrao was not shadowed.
  MR. CAUSTON (Southwark, W.): Would it not be desirable to lay down some rule or establish some office in Dublin where respectable persons could find out whether they would be shadowed or not?
  MR. W. REDMOND: "Will the Government consider the advisability of issuing passports?
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the following letter appearing in the Pall Mail Gazette of 24th June:—
  "Mrs. Edith G. Overend, sister-in-law of the rector of Euniskillen, writes,' I find some of the customs of this country very strange. I am here on a visit from New Zealand, and I am not two days in town till the police have been making inquiries about me, even in such a public place as a bank, as if I were an escaped convict, or suspected of a felony.' … I am a Protestant; and while my politics should not deprive me of the liberties of a citizen, they are not Nationalist, for being a colonist, I know little of Irish controversy;'…"
  whether there is any reason to believe that Mrs. Overend is engaged in criminal proceedings; and whether the Government will issue orders to the police to ensure that this lady shall not be subjected to the shadowing of which she complains?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no foundation for the supposition that this lady has been placed under any sort of surveillance. She appealed to the police, as a stranger in the town, to direct her to respectable lodgings, where she could be visited by her brother-in-law, the rector of the parish. On the following day the rector told the police that he had heard of the lady's arrival, and he asked them if they knew where she was staying. This they endeavoured to ascertain, as she had not gone to the
  44
  lodging recommended. The inquiry was made solely to oblige the rector, and had no public significance of any kind.
  MR. W. REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman has stated there is no ground for asserting that the lady was under police surveillance. I have here a telegram from the lady in which she describes the conduct of the police as abominable, and asking me to ascertain who instructed them to watch her. I have also received a letter from Enniskillen, stating on the best authority that the police did follow this lady, and were instructed to do so. Will the right hon. Gentleman now make further inquiries?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I gather that the police did not follow her; but if the lady will communicate with me directly, or indirectly through the hon. Member, I will inquire as to any specific allegations.
  MR. W. REDMOND: After this answer I give notice that I shall advise the lady to hold no communication with the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of' Ireland whether he can state what number of persons are now being shadowed by policemen in the County of Cork, or if he can give the number so shadowed for the first fortnight of this month?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must ask the hon. Member to defer this question till Monday.

  TIPPERARY.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR (Tipperary, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether complaints have reached him that on Saturday, the 17th of May, the police of Tipperary attempted twice to drive off the streets the Street Inspector of Tipperary while engaged in the performance of his duty, taking down his name and threatening to summon him; that, on the 7th instant, he was also threatened with removal by the police; that on several occasions, including the 12th May, Constable Guinane and other constables impounded horses and cars, whilst their owners were in shops making purchases; and that, on the 2nd instant, the Street Inspector, accompanied by the Sub-Sanitary Officer of the. Poor Law Board, visited a house in St. Michael Street, occupied by emergency men, who had strewn over

  45
  the floor of one robin in the front of the house a layer of bones several inches thick which emitted a bad odour; and whether the Chief Secretary will instruct the police to allow the Street Inspector to do his duty unmolested by the police, and will take steps to have the nuisance complained of removed' "by the police while they are in charge of the emergency men?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that about the 17th of May the police ordered two night watchmen, who were on the street at 5 p.m., obstructing the footway, to move on. That on 19th inst., a day watchman, who styles himself town sergeant, was on the footway with a number of other men causing an obstruction. They were told to move on by the police, which they all did except the man referred to. His name was taken. On 12th May Constable Guinane did impound a restive horse, which he found on the street without any one in charge. No other horse or car impounded on that date. Emergency men did not strew bones over the floor of a room, but a quantity of perfectly dry bones are under the flooring, which has lately been ripped up, where they have apparently lain for years. No odour whatever arises from them.
  MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.): Have the police power to order this man to move on when he was performing his duty?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am told he was not engaged in his duties.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Are the police to be the judges as to whether he is doing his duty?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Their action must depend entirely on whether he is obstructing the streets or not.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Why should the police have authority over an official appointed under the Towns Act? Can they have such authority?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. and learned Member will put his question down, I will inquire.

  THE OLPHERT ESTATE.
  MR. DALTON (Donegal, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in the course of the hearing the charge against Conaghan, the
  46
  bailiff of the Olphert Estate, for presenting his revolver in a drunken fit at one Peter M'Ginley, the defence made by Conaghan was that he had been assaulted by M'Ginley, and that he swore that the blow he received "felled him to the ground, rendering him unconscious," thereby proving that the presenting of the revolver by him must have been before the alleged assault; whether the following report in the Derry Journal of 18th June instant, of the Judgment of the Court consisting of two Resident Magistrates, is correct—
  "The Court commented strongly upon Conaghan's conduct in going about the country carrying a revolver in a threatening attitude, protected as he usually is by a strong body guard of police, and, to mark their sense of the outrage, they ordered Conaghan to be bound to keep the peace for 12 months;"
  and whether the licence to carry arms granted to Conaghan will be revoked?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that the defence made by Conaghan was that, being threatened by M'Ginley, he attempted to draw his revolver, but that before he could do so lie was knocked senseless by M'Ginley. I am further informed that the newspaper report is not correct, except as to the fact that Conaghan was bound to keep the peace for 12 months for giving M'Ginley provocation. The revolver was unloaded, and Conaghan had no ammunition on his person that day. The Resident Magistrate sees no reason why his licence should be revoked for producing an empty revolver.
  MR. DALTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in the Derry Journal of the 23rd June, which describes an attack made by Mr. Hewson, agent to the Olphert Estate, Donegal, upon a number of men and women who were engaged in collecting seaweed upon the strand at Maheroarty on the 21st June, in which it is stated that
  "The agent Hewson, who was accompanied by military and police (on their way back from attending evictions on the Olphert Estate) made a descent upon the people. The women and boys, who were engaged to their waists in the water catching the drift from the receding waves, fled when they saw the agent approaching. The wheel of one of the carts came off, and while Hewson was grappling in the water with the driver the other carts were galloped rapidly to the shore hotly pursued by the agent;

  47
  whether the police, returning from eviction duty, had any authority to assist the agent in harrassing these men and women engaged in saving seaweed on the sea-shore; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that the report in the newspaper mentioned is altogether inaccurate. Mr. Hewson made no attack upon the people. The constabulary and military were not with him. There were three constables protecting a bailiff, but they did not interfere.
  MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.): Is it lawful for the agent or the landlord to prevent the people by force collecting seaweed floating in the sea.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware that any force was used. I gather there was not.

  CONDUCT OF POLICE AT EVICTIONS.
  MR. DALTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the police engaged upon eviction duty on the Olphert Estate, Donegal, on the'19th and 20th of June instant, sang in chorus on their march back each evening to their barracks, "Glory, Glory, Hallelujah"; and whether he will give orders to stop such proceedings in future?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The song in question, which relates to John Brown, is, I am informed, a perfectly respectable one, and I see no reason to interfere.
  MR. DILLON: Do you see no reason to interfere with the police coming home from evicting poor people singing in chorus as if they were rejoicing over their work?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no case of rejoicing in the matter. It is the practice in the Army after a long and heavy day to allow men to sing.
  MR. DILLON: I must press the question whether the right hon. Gentleman considers that it is calculated to preserve the peace, or calculated to lead to a breach of the peace, that the police should be allowed to sing this joyous chorus after performing a most provocative duty, and whether he considers that there is any analogy between soldiers singing a chorus on the march and the Irish Police singing a chorus when they come away from an eviction?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is this analogy—that in both cases men who have been on duty have a long and laborious march. These men were not singing in the neighbourhood of the evictions, as far as I understand. If they were, of course the practice would be objectionable; but why men who have long marches to perform after a day's work should not be allowed a little relaxation on the way I really cannot understand.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.): May I ask whether they were not singing a chorus composed by one of the hon. Members for Dublin?
  MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.): That statement is false. But I would really appeal to the right hon. Gentleman whether, seeing that evictions involve the keenest suffering, pain, and excitement, he does not think that the singing of joyous songs by the police returning from them is not calculated to provoke the temper of the people of Ireland, and whether, therefore, he will not discourage the practice?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Whether it is provocative or not entirely depends o" the circumstances of each case. I do not see anything particularly triumphal or cheerful in this song; but if the police were to sing cheerful songs in the immediate locality of an eviction, I think that might be a provocative proceeding, and one which should not be allowed; but when they have placed a distance between themselves and the scene of evictions, why they should not be allowed to sing on the march I cannot understand.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: At the Ponsonby evictions were not the Caledonians ordered by Colonel Turner to play the bagpipes on the march every day for a fortnight?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That question refers not to the police, but to the soldiers, and might perhaps be addressed to the Secretary of State for War.

  THE CASE OF SERGEANT LORD.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN (Tipperary, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now afford the information as to the result of the inquiries made by the Inspector General of Constabulary into the charges of forgery and fraud against

  49
  Sergeant Lord, of Lorrha; whether he has inquired if the facts are, as alleged by the complainant, Mr. Maher, that the money denied to be due to him by Lord was subsequently offered to him by Mr. Doolan, J.P., and on another occasion by Constable Edwards, of Carrigahorig; and whether, in view of such presumptive evidence that the amount claimed was due, and that the sergeant was guilty of fraud on the Police Authorities by returning as a voucher a forged receipt for the money, the Government will direct the Attorney General to consider the case?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that it has now been ascertained from Mr. Doolan, J.P., that as he personally knew both the sergeant and Mr. Maher he at his own suggestion intervened in a friendly way in order to save trouble and legal proceedings. The constable named did not on any occasion offer the money as alleged. The County Inspector is still inquiring into the matter, but there is nothing as yet in what has been reported to the Inspector General to render it necessary to seek advice from the Attorney General.
  MR. SEXTON: If evidence is forthcoming that the allegation is true, what will be done with the Magistrate who has thus disgraced the Bench?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that the statement is without foundation.
  MR. SEXTON: Evidence will be forthcoming that the man committed this forgery.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If there has been forgery committed, I presume the evidence will be heard before the authorities.
  MR. SEXTON: That was done three months ago.

  THE LEASEHOLDERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. M'CARTAN (Down, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether ho is aware of the universal feeling of leaseholders of agricultural holdings in Ireland in favour of the Leaseholders (Ireland) Bill, introduced by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, and on the Orders of the Day for Second Reading to-morrow; and whether, considering the resolutions in support of the object of the Bill which
  50
  have been passed in almost every district in Ulster, he will now consent to afford facilities for passing this Bill into law during the present Session?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have nothing to add to that I said in answer to the Member for the Scotland Division, namely, that, apart from other objections, I think a conclusive objection to the suggestion is to be found in the present state of public business.

  BONFIRES AT CASHED.
  SIR T. ESMONDS (Dublin Co., S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that on St. John's Eve the police, armed with batons and blackthorns, prevented a number of children from lighting the usual bonfires at Cashel; and, if so, upon what grounds and by what right did they thus interfere with this ancient custom, and by what authority?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Member has in mind certain occurrences at Cashel on Monday night last, I have to say that what the police interfered to prevent was the lighting of bonfires in the centre of the three principal streets of Cashel. The people were told to move them into a more suitable position which they did.
  MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at that time of night the streets of Cashel would be perfectly destitute of traffic, and that, therefore, there would be no obstruction?

  ARREST AT YOUGHAL FAIR.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the arrest of Mr. James O'Brien, of Killeagh, at last Youghal (County Cork) Fair, if he can now state what charge was preferred against this gentleman; is it a fact that, he was charged with jostling a policeman who was shadowing him through the fair; and why was Mr. O'Brien arrested in a summary manner, and not summoned in the ordinary way.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that the man was arrested on the charge of obstructing Constable Quinn in the execution of his duty, and for conduct calculated to lead to a breach of the peace. It is not a fact that he was charged as alleged in the second paragraph. He was arrested

  51
  because, owing to the persistency of his conduct, the constable was unable to discharge his duty.
  MR. FLYNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman state definitely what was the charge against Mr. O'Brien?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have done so; he was charged with obstructing the police, and his conduct was calculated to lead to a breach of the peace.
  MR. FLYNN: Why was he not summoned in the ordinary way, instead of being arrested?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have already said that because of the persistency of his conduct the constable was unable to discharge his duties.
  MR. DILLON: What duty was the constable discharging?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must have notice of that question.
  MR. FLYNN: Is there any doubt in the right hon. Gentleman's mind that he was shadowing Mr. O'Brien?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot say that. I have no doubt he was watching boycotting at the fair, but I cannot say if he was following this particular man.

  THE NEW LICENCES BILL.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Government propose to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Tyrone to omit Clause 3 from the "New Licences Bill," or will they consider the necessity which arises for some temporary licensing power by reason of such cases as that of James Blayney, of Lurgan, where, after premises being licensed for 70 years, a transfer was refused by the local bench because the applicant was a Catholic; and do the Government intend to shut out such applicants from all possibility of obtaining renewals?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will defer his question until the Bill is considered. The refusal of the transfer had nothing to do with religion.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I give notice that I will not proceed with the Bill, which would simply be made an instrument of oppression against my co-religionists, unless some such clause as Clause 3 were adopted.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to give notice that when the Bill is considered I shall move the omission of Clause 3.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: No one is afraid of the opposition of the hon. Member.

  CHARGES AGAINST THE POLICE.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, any report has been made by the police officer of Gorey district to the Police Authorities in Dublin Castle against Police Sergeant Jervis, of Gorey, for drunkenness in the public streets in January last; if so, what action has been taken by the authorities in reference to the charge; and also, if he is aware that a police constable from Courtown, County Wexford, recently left with Mr. William Bolyer, tailor, of Gorey, material for a suit of plain clothes, for which he was measured; whether, subsequently, this constable was ordered by Head Constable M'Cormack, his superior officer, to cancel the order and take away the stuff; and, if so, what was the reason for the head constable giving such an order; and whether the sub-constable has cancelled the contract?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sorry I must ask the hon. Baronet to defer his questions, as I have not been able to get the information.

  OUTRAGES IN TIPPERARY.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the report in the Daily Express of Monday, the 23rd instant, to the effect that a young man, named James Sadleir, was fired at on Friday night, on returning to his home from Tipperary, is accurate; whether the report that Sadleir has been "frequently threatened" is true, and whether there is any evidence to prove that his unpopularity in the district is in any way due to the fact that his family has refused to join in the no-rent policy adopted against Mr. Smith-Barry; and if the police have made any report on the matter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The facts as to this outrage appear to be as described in the question. Mr. Sadleir and two friends complained to the police on the night of the 20th inst that they had been, attacked with stones and fired at

  53
  The police fully reported the matter. There can be no reasonable doubt that the cause of Mr. Sadleir's unpopularity is that he and his family have refused to join in the combination against Mr. Smith-Barry.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Has the right right hon. Gentleman received information that last night an explosive machine was thrown into the shop of a boycotted man in Tipperary?
  MR. A. J, BALFOUR: It is the fact such an outrage has been committed.
  MR. SHEEHY (Galway, S.): Is there any other shopkeeper in Tipperary of the name of the man into whose shop this explosive is said to have been thrown?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir; there is a shopkeeper of the name of Duggan.
  MR. SHEEHY: No, there is not.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Is there any ground for the statement of the hon. Member for South Tyrone except the assertion of Sadleir? Have the police been able to trace the shots said to have been fired?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No doubt the police have investigated the matter.

  LADY BURNETT'S SCHOOL, BANCHORY.
  MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.): I bug to ask the Lord Advocate whether, with reference to Lady Burnett's School, Banchory, it is the case that the school is being managed by one Governor, who, under the recently sanctioned scheme, is the only one who is in the meantime capable of acting; whether, by Article 17 (h) of the Scotch Code, 1890, it is necessary before the Government grant can be paid that there should be at least three Governors to every school not a Board school; and whether, in the above circumstances, it is the intention of the Scotch Education Department to refuse any further grant to the school until steps are taken to make such an alteration on the scheme as will satisfy the requirements of the Code?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON, Bute): I understand that, owing to circumstances, only one Governor is now acting under the scheme recently sanctioned for the Lady Burnett's School. Article 17 (h) of the Scotch Code requires that three persons
  54
  should designate one of their number to sign the receipt for the grant to the school. One Trustee and two other Managers have hitherto acted under this provision of the Code, and we have not been informed that there has been any change in this respect. The question of a grant to the school must be decided after careful examination of the usual Returns at the time when the grant falls conditionally due. The Department cannot commit themselves to any decision beforehand, nor are they prepared at present to say that any alteration in the scheme is necessary to satisfy the requirements of the Code.

  SCOTCH SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS.
  MR. SHIRESS WILL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the triennial election of School Boards throughout Scotland will take place next year; and whether, in view of that fact, the answer of the Secretary for Scotland to the deputation of about 30 Scottish Members on the subject of the School Board Election (Scotland) Bill, promised by himself on the 28th March to be given on an early day, and again promised by the Lord Advocate in this House on the 22nd May to be given "shortly after Whitsuntide," and again promised by the Lord Advocate in this House on the 16th instant to be given on Friday the 20th instant, will now be given; and, if not, what is the explanation of the delay?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The Government are not prepared to give time for the discussion of the hon. and learned Member's Bill, nor can they add to the number of controversial Bills now before the House. They are, However, prepared to bring in a Bill of one clause assimilating the franchise for elections of School Boards to the franchise for elections of County Councils and Town Councils, and to pass it after 12 o'clock, should it meet with general approval.

  THE CONVICT WRIGHT.
  MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S. W.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the number and character of the punishments inflicted on the convict Wright during his confinement in Portsea Prison; and whether he will

  55
  order an inquiry into the mental condition and responsibility of this convict by a medical man independent of the Prisons Board?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS, Birmingham, E.): I am informed by the Prison Commissioners that this convict has been reported 52 times and punished 50 times. The punishments include dietary punishment, close confinement, loss of class privileges and remission, and corporal punishments which has been inflicted once. He is reported to be of sound mind. There is no reason to question the competence of the medical officers attached to the Prison Department to give a correct opinion on the question of a prisoner's condition of mind. I do not propose to order a special inquiry in this case; but I have given instructions that the mental condition of the prisoner shall be closely watched.

  THE METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he could state the number of Metropolitan Police usually employed in the County of Middlesex outside the County of London?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Commissioner that the number of men so employed is 1,324.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what orders or instructions have been given by the new Commissioner of Police as regards the prohibition of meetings of constables to discuss the questions of their pay or pensions?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that no new general orders have been given as regards the prohibition of meetings of constables to discuss questions of pay and pension. The superintendents have been instructed to remind their men of the Standing Orders, prescribing the manner in which representations on these subjects should be made. An order was issued last night, in which, in reply to several Petitions, the Commissioner declined to allow a meeting of Representatives of divisions to be held in Bow Street, as being contrary to the best interests of the men, and the efficiency of the force. At the same time he declared his willing-
  56
  ness to receive any representations from members of the force through the authorised channels, and to give them his best attention.
  *MR. PICKERSGILL: Is it not a fact that the Superintendents were permitted to meet for the objects indicated in the question, and is not the same privilege to be accorded to the rank and file?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I should like to have notice of the question if the hon. Member wants a full answer, but my recollection is that the Superintendents were directed to ascertain the wishes of the men in their respective divisions, that course not being deemed contrary to the Standing Orders.
  MR. JAMES ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.): Why are the men thus to be suddenly deprived of the power of discussing their grievances?
  MR. MATTHEWS: No new Regulation has been issued; their attention has only been called to existing Rules.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: Is it a fact that another meeting which has been called has been prohibited?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I must ask for notice of that question.

  MR. WARRY, Q.C.
  MR. CRILLY (Mayo, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home; Department whether he has seen the report in the Daily News, of the 24th inst., of the case of a man named Jones, who was tried before Mr. Warry, Q.C, at the London County Sessions sitting at Clerkenwell, charged with stealing a purse containing 2s. 4d., and, on conviction, was sentenced by Mr. Warry to 10 years' penal servitude, and from which it appears that the prosecution failed to prove that Jones was seen to take the purse or ever had it in his possession; and if he will consider the advisability of remitting some portion of this sentence; and I may also ask him if he is aware that this Magistrate has today sentenced another man to 10 years' penal servitude for stealing an overcoat?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am not in possession of any particulars with regard to these cases, but I will make inquiry at once.
  MR. CRILLY: I will repeat the questions.

  RAILWAY TELEGRAMS.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS (Notts, Rushcliffe): I beg to ask the Postmaster General what number of messages were sent by the Telegraphic Department during 1889 on account of the railway companies, free of charge to them; and, having regard to the evidence of the Superintendent of Telegraphs before the Revenue Estimates Committee, in 1888, that this transmission of free messages had increased from 97,000 in 1871 to 961,000 in 1887, entirely at the public expense, whether he has been able in any way to check or diminish this growing charge on the National Exchequer?
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAISES,): The number of telegrams transmitted free of charge for the railway companies in the year 1889 was 1,244,000. The subject of the hon. Member's question is engaging my careful attention, and the legal proceedings to which I referred in answer to a question on the 31st March last are still pending.

  POSTAL CHARGES IN SCOTLAND.
  COLONEL MALCOLM (Argyllshire): I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that great dissatisfaction is caused by the postal charges made on the official forms rendered necessary by the Local Government (Scotland) Act, and that the difficulty of carrying out that Act in scattered counties is enormously increased by the action of the Postal Authorities therein, 900 Schedules having been returned in one county alone; and whether he will issue such instructions as may put an end to this grievance?
  *MR. RAIKES: A difference of opinion has for some time existed as to how far these forms can be held to comply with the existing Regulations regarding book-rate postage, but alterations in the Regulations have been suggested, and I am at the present time in correspondence with the Treasury on the subject. I am decidedly of opinion that if the present doubts cannot be satisfactorily cleared up no time should be lost in so amending the Regulations as to make it no longer a matter of question how far these forms are entitled to pass at the book-rate.

  THE ANGLO-GERMAN AGREEMENT.
  MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that of recent years German newspapers, partly non-official and partly semi-official, in discussing the possibility of the cession of Heligoland, have repeatedly given expression to the desire, which is widely entertainedin military circles in Germany, that the island should be converted into a high-class fortress similar to Kronstadt; whether, in view of the limited area of the island, a scheme of that description would of necessity involve the dispossession of the inhabitants, and consequently be injurious to the interests of the fishermen from the East Coast of England, who are now able to make use of Heligoland for various purposes connected with their industry; and whether the Government will consider the desirability of arriving at an understanding with Germany that in the event of the cession taking place no such scheme shall be carried out?
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will consider the advisability of stipulating, in the event of Heligoland being ceded to Germany, that the island shall not be converted into a naval fortress, and that the islanders shall be permanently exempted from military service?
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): No conditions with respect to the fortifications of the Island of Heligoland can be made, as the German Government must obviously be left to decide on the measures necessary for the defence of its own coasts. Her Majesty's Government are in communication with the German Government with a view to the adoption of measures for the protection of British fishing interests and the immunity of the present inhabitants from conscription.
  *MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if fortifications and naval works are constructed by the Germans on so small an area, it will practically amount to an order to the inhabitants to leave the island?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: No, Sir; I am not aware of that fact.
  *MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Prime Minister is correctly reported, at the Merchant Taylors' Company's Dinner on 27th May, to have laid down as the canon of his policy as regards the surrender or the acquisition of territory that these are questions on which the public opinion of England and the full assent of Parliament should be previously obtained; whether, the opinion of Parliament will be taken on the Cession of Heligoland Bill before the Treaty is signed by the Representative of Great Britain; and whether having regard to the declarations of the Prime Minister, an opportunity will be given to this, House to discuss the whole of the arrangements come to between Great Britain and Germany before the Treaty is signed?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: The Treaty will be drawn in such terms as to be conditional on the passing of the Bill. I understand that the Question does not convey an accurate representation of the remarks of my noble Friend; but as to any remarks he may have made, it would be more convenient that the question should be addressed to him in the House where he sits. I may add that any engagement of the nature indicated will be fulfilled by the submission of the Bill to Parliament, on which the whole Agreement depends.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any Reports from the Naval or Military Authorities, as to the proposed cession of Heligoland, will be laid upon the Table in time for the discussion on the Bill which is necessary to carry the cession into effect?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: Confidential Reports of naval and military men upon strategic questions could not conveniently be published.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will inform the House what steps have been taken by the Government to ascertain the views of the inhabitants of Heligoland on the proposed cession of the island to Germany?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: The arrangement cannot be made dependent upon a popular vote. The possession of the island was acquired without the consent of the people, and Her Majesty's Government fulfil their
  60
  duty towards them by securing to all now living exceptional privileges. We have every reason to believe that their interests will in no wav suffer by the change of Sovereignty.
  MR. SEXTON: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to a series of letters in the Pall Mall Gazette to the effect that they can find no one in the island who is in favour of the transfer?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to draw my attention to the Pall Mall Gazette, I shall be glad to give him an answer, but he will not be surprised to hear that I am not able just now to read many newspapers.
  MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.): The right hon. Gentleman says that communications are passing with the German Government with regard to the immunity of the present inhabitants of Heligoland from military service. We understood that that was one of the points stipulated in the original Agreement that no one now living should be compelled to serve. Is that point still open to discussion?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Gentleman is quite right in drawing my attention to the language. There is an undertaking on the part of the German Government that all the present inhabitants of Heligoland shall be exempt from military service.
  MR. BRYCE: Then on what point, may I ask, are further communications with regard to military service passing?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is necessary to put these undertakings into diplomatic language.

  NATIONAL GALLERY FOR BRITISH ARTISTS—MR. TATE'S PROPOSALS.
  MR. WHITMORE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government are willing to entertain the proposals and assist the scheme, suggested by Mr. Henry Tate in his letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, dated 17th June instant, for the establishment of a National Gallery of British Art?
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: On the same subject I will ask the First Lord whether Her

  61
  Majesty's Government have come to any decision as to the acceptance of Mr. Tate's offer of pictures?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's, Hanover Square): The views of the Government with reference to Mr. Tate's offer had been communicated to that gentleman in a letter sent yesterday from the Treasury, and this letter would probably be published. If Mr. Tate's most generous offer was not accepted at once, it was not owing so much to want of space in the National Gallery as to the fact that Mr. Tate rather insisted on the condition that his pictures should be kept together as a separate collection, and such a condition was rather at variance with the regulations that were generally observed at the National Gallery. The Government were extremely grateful to Mr. Tate for his munificent offer, and sincerely hoped that they might be able to accept it. Discussions were being held now as to the allocation of the eastern and western galleries at South Kensington to the purposes of a gallery for British Art. These galleries were well lighted and were fireproof. On this subject he had himself been in communication with the Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851, the Trustees of the National Gallery, and Sir Frederick Leighton. Mr. Tate attached at present certain conditions of management to his offer of his pictures which it might be difficult, if not impossible, to accept; but he trusted that when Mr. Tate should see that arrangements had been made for the establishment of a gallery for British artists at South Kensington, he would think fit to present this valuable collection of pictures, as originally proposed, to the nation.

  TRUST FUNDS INVESTMENTS.
  MR. P. M'DONALD (Sligo, N.): I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has yet considered the Report of the Departmental Committee on the question of permitting Trustees to invest Trust Funds in colonial securities; and, if so, what conclusion has been come to?
  MR, GOSCHEN: It will be obvious to the hon. Member that whatever conclusion I may come as to the Report of
  62
  the Committee, legislation on the subject of Trust Funds investments in colonial securities is impossible this Session.

  THE KILLY BEGS LIGHT RAILWAY.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the West Donegal Railway Company, which is promoting and proposes to work the Killy begs Light Railway Line, possesses any rolling stock, and whether its own line is worked by the Finn Valley Railway Company at a loss to the latter body; whether, before deciding to make a grant in favour of the Killybegs line, he will take into account the inadvisability of allowing that line to be worked by a company which will be constantly under the temptation in its traffic arrangements to benefit its own shareholders at the expense of the ratepayers, who will have to guarantee any loss that may occur in respect of the working expenses of the proposed new line; whether the Killybegs and Baltimore Light. Railway lines have got any precedence over the other schemes projected under the Act of last year; and, if so, on what grounds; and whether it is intended to put up to competition the engineering as well as the construction of the light railway lines which may be finally sanctioned by the Treasury?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON, Leeds, N.): I am informed that the rolling stock belongs to the West Donegal Company, although the line is worked under an agreement by the Finn Valley Company. The Finn Valley Company works the line for a percentage of the gross receipts, guaranteeing a minimum payment to the West Donegal Company, and up to the present the balance over the working expenses has not reached the minimum. The prospects have, I believe, improved since the line was completed into Donegal. I will certainly carefully consider how to secure that the Killybegs line is credited with its full share of the receipts and debited only with its proper share of expenditure in order to safeguard the interests of the county. The Killybegs line has got no precedence over other lines beyond the fact that they have made more progress with the proposals which they submitted to the Treasury. It is not intended to put up to competition

  63
  the preparation of the plans and working drawings, but care will be taken that the scale of payments for the plans shall be a reasonable one.
  MR. CLANCY: Is it not a common practice to put up the engineering as well as the construction of these lines to competition, and is Mr. Barton, the promoter and engineer of this line, to be the only person with whom there shall he no competition?
  MR. JACKSON: I should think it is not customary to put up the engineering to competition, because, until a plan has been prepared, no presentment can be made by the Grand Jury.

  THE LONDON COMPANIES.
  MR. HOWELL (Bethnal Green, N.E.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government will consent to grant the Return as to the income and expenditure of the Corporation of the City of London, the Irish Society, the twelve great companies, &c, mentioned in the notice on the Paper for this day?
  MR. JACKSON: It is not in my power to provide the information.

  THE BUTTER TRADE.
  MR. LANE (Cork Co., E.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the following statement in the Grocer of this week:—
  "Nurdin and Peacock v. Hornet.
  "The Falaise Tribunal sentenced Vitard to one month's imprisonment and a fine of £40, and Hornet, his accomplice, to a fine of £8, the Judgment to be inserted at their expense in several newspapers, and to be posted at the Town Hall, and also on the doors of Vitard's and Hornet's residences;"
  whether he is aware that this sentence was inflicted (at the prosecution of the French. Authorities acting upon evidence given at Bow Street Police Court) for having sold adulterated French butters as pure butters to an English firm; is he aware that a merchant was fined £10 and costs, at the Westminster Police Court last Thursday, for selling butter adulterated with 25 per cent, of foreign fat, though the Magistrate admitted that he proved to the complete satisfaction of the Court that he had bought and paid for it as pure butter, and that every package was imported direct from
  64
  Belgium, branded, and guaranteed pure butter; is he aware that the value of British and Irish dairy produce has been reduced this year by about 30 per cent, under its normal value, owing to this unfair competition with adulterated foreign butter; and whether, under these circumstances, he will co-operate with the French Government in suppressing this traffic, by instructing the Custom House officials at the various ports where foreign butters are landed, to enforce the powers conferred on them by section 8 of the Margarine Act of 1887?
  MR. JACKSON: The attention of the Board of Customs has been called to the statement made in the Grocer in regard to certain persons having been convicted in France for adulterating butter and to the proceedings at Westminster Police Court, but they have no official knowledge of the circumstances. Large quantities of margarine are imported into this country from the Continent, and the Board are not aware that it is described as butter. I am unable to say whether there has been such a reduction as the hon. Member describes in the value of British and Irish dairy produce or that it is due to competition with adulterated foreign butter. The powers conferred upon the Customs Officers by Section 8 of the Margarine Act, 1887, is limited to the taking of samples, and the officers would have no authority under that Act to detain the goods. The examination by analysis of all imported butter by the Customs Officers would not only involve a large increase in the present staff, but it would also cause much delay in the delivery of a perishable article and lead to much friction and inconvenience to the trade. I am, however, sending a copy of the hon. Member's question with a copy of this reply to my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee on Merchandise Marks. It may be that his Committee has taken evidence on the subject.

  DAMARALAND.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the last accounts rendered by the German Company in Damaraland showed that on the 1st of August of last year the whole of the assets of the company amounted to

  65
  110,000 marks, or a little over £5,000; and whether he is able to give the House any later information with regard to the financial position of this company?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FER-GUSSON, Manchester, N.E.): We have no information on this subject.

  THE EAST AFRICAN AGREEMENT.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what part, if any, of the mainland of East Africa south of the point on the coast where the British and German "spheres of influence" meet is included in the "Sultanate of Zanzibar," over which according to Lord Salisbury's Despatch, it has been agreed that Her Majesty shall assume a Protectorate, or is it to be understood that all such part of the Sultanate as lies on the coast of the mainland from the above-mentioned point south ward to as far as Cape Delgado is to be transferred to the Protectorate of Germany?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I stated on the 20th inst. that the dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar, with the exception of the strip of coast farmed out to the German East Africa Company, were included in the proposed British Protectorate. The coast is south of the point where the British and German spheres of influence meet, and is not included. I should add that the Island of Mafia, lying off this coast, will probably not be included in our Protectorate in case of Germany arranging with the Sultan for its inclusion in the territory to be ceded to her.
  MR. BRYCE: Then the point put in my question is correct?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: That is so.

  RUMOURED MASSACRE OF CHRISTIANS AT KOSSOVA.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The hon. Member for South Aberdeen lately asked me regarding an alleged massacre of Ghristians by Arnauts in the vilayet of Kossova, in Albania. The Consul General at Salonica has spontaneously reported, upon seeing the statement in question in certain Continental newspapers, that he had made inquiry of railway officials arriving from places in
  66
  that district, who declared that they had heard of no such event. Her Majesty's Minister at Belgrade, while mentioning that complaints had been made of oppression by turbulent Albanians on their Christian neighbours, does not refer to any allegations of murders.
  MR. BRYCE: Cannot further steps be taken to ascertain the truth, seeing that Salonica is 200 miles away from the place where the massacres are alleged to have occurred?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Consul General cannot travel that distance; he can only make such inquiries as he has made.

  CRETE.
  MR. SCHWANN (Manchester, N.): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to a telegram in the Daily News of the 24th instant, which states that—
  "A Memorandum has been presented by the Christian population to the Consuls of Foreign Poweis at Canea, containing a number of complaints. The Consuls of Austria, Hungary, and Italy declared to the deputation which presented the Memorandum that they would use contents as material for private information. The British Consul, Mr. Billiotti refused to receive the Memorandum altogether, saying his own information was sufficient for him to know all the Cretans were in need;"
  whether his attention has been called to a telegram in the Manchester Guardian of 21st June, in which it was stated that the Governor of Crete had determined to re-introduce Courts Martial into the island; and whether he has received information of the existence of such a state of affairs as would warrant the adoption of these measures?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Memorandum referred to was left at the house of Her Majesty's Consul when he was out, and was sent back to the petitioners by him the next day as not being a document which, in his position of Consul, he could properly receive, seeing that it called for his official intervention in matters on which the petitioners had addressed the Vali, and that his acceptance of it would probably have led the petitioners to believe that Her Majesty's Government would interfere when there was no reason to suppose that the Vali would not give due consideration to their representations. Her Majesty's Govern-

  67
  ment are not aware of any intention on the part of the Vali to re-establish Courts Martial.

  THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to give the House any information regarding the alleged conflict between French and Newfoundland fishermen?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Inquiry has been made by telegraph, and the Governor of Newfoundland has replied that nothing is known of the rumour of a conflict between French and Newfoundland fishermen.

  THE EGYPTIAN EXILES AT CEYLON.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a Memorial has been received from the Egyptian exiles at Ceylon, enclosing medical certificates showing that their health is seriously affected by the dampness of the climate, and expressing a hope that, under the circumstances and in view of their exile having lasted seven years, Her Majesty's Government will urge the Egyptian Government to allow them to return to Egypt; and stating that, if this permission be accorded to them, they will pledge their honour to abstain from taking any part in public affairs, to do which, they add, they can have no object, as the grievances which they formerly complained of have been fully redressed; and, what action Her Majesty's Government proposes to take in respect to this Memorial?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Memorial referred to reached the Foreign Office to-day and has not yet been considered.

  STAMPS FOR INDIA.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India what sum is annually paid by the India Office to the Inland Revenue Department in connection with the control of stamps and stamped paper for India, and on what terms; whether the India Office receives any detailed statement of the manner in which that sum is expended, and whether any portion of it remains unexpended upon the special purpose for which it is paid?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): The sum is £3,480, appropriated as follows (1):—Personal allowances to certain Revenue Officers, £590; (2) Contributions towards superannuations, £100; (3) payments to Imperial Exchequer for miscellaneous services of Inland Revenue Officers during official hours, and not covered by the personal allowances above, £300; (4)s alaries and expenses of Supervising Staff, £2,490. Detailed statements are received as to items (1) and (4), but not as regards the others. No portion remains unexpended.

  INDIAN TELEGRAPHISTS.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether it was with the sanction of the Secretary of State that the rule of the Telegraph Department of the Government of India, which laid down that where quarters could not be provided in the respective telegraph buildings for signallers, such signallers, both European and Indian, should have house rent allowance on a given scale, was changed; whether it was with his approval that while the allowance was continued to Europeans it was stopped for Indians, and whether there is any difference in the duties performed by European and Indian signallers which would justify the withdrawal of these allowances; and, if there be no difference, whether he will give instructions to the Government of India to restore to the Indian signallers the house allowance hitherto granted to them?
  SIR J. GORST: No change has been made in the rules of the Telegraph Service in the matter referred to in the question. Native Indian signallers have never been required to reside in the telegraph buildings as their social and religious customs would forbid them doing so. They have, therefore, never been entitled to house allowance.

  KASHMIR.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India when the repeatedly promised Papers relating to Kashmir will be presented to this House, and whether, in view of the present painful position of His Highness the Maharajah, the Secretary of State will at once authorise a judicial inquiry

  69
  into the grave charges made by the Government and solemnly denied by His Highness?
  SIR J. GORST: I have to-day laid the Papers on the Table. The action of the Government in Kashmir has been based, not upon grave personal charges made against the Maharajah, but upon the long-continued misgovernment of Kashmir, which rendered it necessary, in the interest of the people, to put an end to chronic oppression and misrule. Neither the Secretary of State nor the Government of India, as I have several times stated in Parliament, have ever attached any importance to certain treasonable and criminal correspondence attributed to the Maharajah. It is obvious that the conduct of the Government in making such arrangements as involve the withdrawal of the Maharajah for a time on political grounds from active participation in the Government of the State cannot be made the subject of investigation by a judicial officer.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I will ask when the Papers are likely to be circulated to Members, and whether, if they disclose a different state of things from that which has just been stated, the Government will afford any opportunity for this unfortunate gentleman to repel accusations which ho declares to be absolutely without foundation.
  *SIR J. GORST: The distribution of Papers does not rest with me. It depends on the printing authorities of the House, over whom I have no control. With regard to the second part of the question, I think the hon. Member had better wait until he sees the Papers.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: In view of the excessive gravity of the matter, as I understand the Papers, I shall avail myself of such opportunities as the Forms of the House permit unless the Government afford some opportunity to this unfortunate gentleman to answer the charges made against him.

  THE CHESHIRE SALT CORPORATION.
  MR. J. KELLY (Camberwell, N.): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Mr. John Brydone, whose name has recently been largely advertised as that of the Chairman of the Cheshire Salt Corpora-
  70
  tion, with a capital of £250,000, is at present the Inspector under the Canal Boats Acts, and in the receipt of a salary of £600 a year; whether he is aware that the Directors of that company published in the advertisement of their prospectus a letter bearing the signature of Mr. Thomas Ward, of Brookfield House, Northwich, dated 4th June, 1887, and purporting to recommend the Church Hill Estate which, in the prospectus, was described as "one of the most important salt properties in the United Kingdom," and as having been secured by the company, and that such letter of Mr. Ward has been stated by him in a letter dated the 18th instant "not to have referred to that estate, but to an entirely different property;" whether, in consequence of such second letter of Mr. Ward, the Directors of the company have been unable to proceed to allotment; and whether he will state if there -is any rule as to the holding of Directorships by Civil servants?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE, Tower Hamlets, St. George's): Prior to notice of this question, my attention was drawn to the fact that Mr. Brydone, who is an Inspector under the Canal Boats. Acts, was named in the prospectus of the proposed Cheshire Salt Corporation as the Chairman of the company, and I at once called upon him for an explanation. He informed me that his acceptance of the position would not interfere with the performance of his duties as an officer of the Department, as the meetings of the Directors would be held in the afternoon or evening, and would not occupy more than one or two hours monthly. I regret that Mr. Brydone should have accepted the position referred to, and I have so informed him and intimated to him that his holding the office of Director in any public company is inconsistent with the terms on which he was appointed as an Inspector. I have no information as to the estate referred to in the prospectus, but Mr. Brydone informs me that the Directors of the company are not proceeding to allotment.

  VACCINATION—ROYAL COMMISSION.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when the second Report of the

  71
  Royal Commission on Vaccination will be circulated to Members of this House?
  *MR. RITCHIE: The second Report of the Royal Commission on Vaccination is now in the hands of the Stationery Office, who state that, in consequence of the number of coloured lithographed diagrams it contains, the copies cannot be issued in less than three weeks' time.

  DESTITUTE IMMIGRANTS.
  SIR J. COLOMB (Tower Hamlets, Bow, &c.): I bog to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence of Inspector Holland, at the Wandsworth Police Court on the 18th instant, as to a destitute Italian family, recently arrived in this country, consisting of a father, mother, and six children, who were living in a miserable apartment, which smelt horribly, with a cat, a monkey, and several white mice, and to the further statement of Inspector Holland that within a short period 200 Italians in the same destitute condition had arrived in this country; and what steps are being taken to give effect to the recommedations of the Select Committee on the Immigration of Foreigners?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICES BEACH, Bristol, W.): I am informed that Inspector Holland did not state that, within a short period, 200 destitute Italians had immigrated into this country. In this particular case, the family had been brought to England by one of its members who was living here, and had sent £16 to Italy to pay their passage. This person was bound over in the sum of £25 as a guarantee for the good conduct of the father of the family, who was proved to have sent a child to beg. The father stated that eight other Italian families came over with him. As regards the recommendations of the Select Committee mi the Immigration of Foreigners, I can only repeat what I have already stated in reply to other hon. Members, namely, that steps are being taken to put in force the recommendations of the Committee so far as it is possible to do so without fresh legislative powers. We are obtaining a statistical record of the immigration of foreigners as regards vessels arriving at the principal ports of the United Kingdom from European
  72
  ports, and we are also getting Reports from British Consuls at the chief European ports as to the emigration of destitute aliens to the United Kingdom.
  *SIR J. COLOMB: Are arrangements now in operation for keeping the record?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ORDERS.
  MR. BEAUFOY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, as it is contrary to practice to allow Local Authorities by one and the same Act or Provisional Order to establish gas undertakings with power to transfer them, whether he will state the reasons which have led him to depart from this practice in the case of Electric Lighting Orders which the Board have recently granted to Local Authorities?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have nothing to add to the replies I have already given in the House with reference to this matter. I have confidence in the discretion of the Local Authorites, and, with the safeguards contained in the clause referred to, I do not think the interests of the public can suffer.
  MR. BEAUFOY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade why the Model Electric Lighting Order, which has recently been prepared by the Department over which he presides, since it contains most unusual powers of transfer to Local Authorities, was not placed upon the Table of the House for consideration, as is necessary in the case of rules made by the Board?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Section 5 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, requires that rules made by the Board of Trade under that Act shall be laid before Parliament, but there is no similar provision in respect to the model form of Provisional Order. The Orders, as granted by the Board of Trade, are submitted to Parliament for confirmation, and have no force until so confirmed.

  THE NEW EDUCATION CODE.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, in reference to the Return he has issued giving the estimate of the probable additional expenditure caused by the changes in the New Code, 1890, how he arrives at the estimate of £30,000

  73
  only as the additional expenditure likely to be incurred under Articles 101 (a) and (b); and whether the total estimated additional expenditure of £95,000 is for a whole year, or for that portion of the existing financial year only during which the New Code will be in force?
  *THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE (Sir W. HART DYKE,): £95,000 is the total estimated expenditure for a whole year. With regard to tins item of £30,000, I can only say that it is an estimate framed upon what is, undoubtedly, a somewhat conjectural basis, by the best expert assistance at the disposal of the Department.

  ADULTERATION OF BUTTER.
  MR. LANE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will undertake to bring under the notice of the Departments of Agriculture in France, Belgium, Holland, and Denmark the grave injury which is being done to the dairy farmers of those countries, and of Great Britain, by the growing practice of adulterating butter, with a view to holding a Conference to consider how this matter might be dealt with, in order to protect the dairy interests of the various countries concerned?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): The question of the hon. Member refers to a matter which is undoubtedly of great importance to a large and, I believe, a steadily increasing branch of agricultural industry in the United Kingdom—namely, the manufacture of butter and dairy farming generally, and I listen, I can assure him, with a very sympathising ear to any representations affecting the prosperity of that branch of agricultural industry which the Board of Agriculture is doing its best to promote and encourage throughout the country at the present time. The question, however, of the hon. Member only appeared on the Paper this morning, and I have neither the knowledge nor information as to the facts of the case to warrant my undertaking to adopt the course he proposes. I will, however, examine into the facts without loss of time, with the view of ascertaining if it is possible or desirable
  74
  to take any action in the direction which he suggests; but I am under the impression that it is a matter which is within the jurisdiction of the Customs rather than the Board of Agriculture.

  OUTLAYS ON FORTIFICATIONS.
  ADMIRAL MAYNE (Pembroke, &c.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will grant a Return showing the amount of money spent on fortifications, and on guns for them, since the recommendations of the Royal Commission in 1859?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOII WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): If my hon. and gallant Friend will move for such a Return, I shall be happy to give it exactly as regards fortifications, and approximately as regards the guns for them.

  QUARTERMASTERS AND ARMY CONTRACTORS.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to evidence, recently given before the Chester Bankruptey Court, by John Rowlands, for several years contractor for bread to the Chester garrison, who stated that he supplied Quartermaster Yates (now in India) and Quartermaster Binthall (who has since left the Army) regularly with bread for themselves and families, for which they never paid, that both of them had to do with the rations, and it would have been an awkward thing to press them for payment; whether he will make inquiry into the truth of this allegation; what is the actual duty of Quartermasters as to inspecting and reporting on rations; and if their duties extend only to reporting on quantity, what steps he has taken to insure that the officers whoso duty it is to inspect rations for quality do not devolve that duty upon their Quartermasters?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: The particular case referred to in the question is under investigation. The duties of a Quartermaster in inspecting rations are limited by Queen's Regulations to points of quantity. He has nothing to do with quality; and it is the duty of his commanding officer to see that the regulations are complied with.

  THE ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT.
  DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has received memorials and communications from the Royal Colleges of Physicians of London and Edinburgh, the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of England and Ireland, and other Public Bodies, urging the Government, on behalf of the medical profession, to carry out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the Army Medical Department, which recently sat under the presidency of Lord Camperdown; and whether, in consideration of the representative character of these important licensing Corporations, he will lay their Memorials upon the Table of the House for the information of hon. Members?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: Such Memorials as have been received by the War Office can be presented to the House if the hon. Member moved for them.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman include the answers given by the War Office?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: The hon. Member can see the answers if he desires to do so, but I do not think it necessary to lay them on the Table of the House.

  SOLDIERS' PENSIONS.
  MR. CRILLY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War with reference to the case of Patrick McDonnell, a private in the 1st Battalion of the East Lancashire Foot Regiment, who was discharged from the Service on the 6th March, 1888, having been found medically unfit for further service, and who; had spent a considerable time in India, where he contracted the disease of the heart which necessitated his retirement, whether his conduct while in the Army was, as his certificate of discharge shows, "very good"; whether a number of medical certificates have been submitted to the War Office, showing that McDonnell after his service in the Army is physically unable to earn a livelihood; and whether, under the circumstances, some provision in the shape of a pension can be made for him?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: The grant of pensions rests with the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital; and I have sent the case of Patrick M'Donnell for their consideration.

  THE MUNSTER FUSILIERS.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to a disturbance which occurred on Thursday last among the men of the 5th Battalion Munster Fusiliers at Limerick; whether these men (militia) are, contrary to usage, compelled to lie under canvass, and that, owing to rain and defective arrangements, their bedclothes, &c, have been wet, and there is danger of sickness ensuing; and whether a sum of 2s. 5d. per week has been taken off the men's pay, and, as universal dissatisfaction has been excited, whether steps will be taken to improve their condition, and revert to the original position of the Force?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: The General Officer at Cork has reported that this Militia battalion was encamped for training; but as after two days incessant rain the bedding and camp furniture became saturated, the men were, under medical advice, transferred to billets. After a day in billets, the equipment being quite dry the battalion returned, with the medical officer's concurrence, to camp. No stoppage was made from the men's pay; but, being under canvas, they get no lodging or ration allowance. Nothing is known of airy general dissatisfaction or defective arrangements or anticipated illness.

  H.M.S. EGERIA.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any petty officer or seaman has already been sentenced to punishment in connection with the alleged disturbance on board the Egeria, on Good Friday; if so, will he state in each case the offence charged, the constitution of the Court, and the sentence imposed?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): If the hon. Member will refer to my answer to a similar question on June 24, I think he will find all the information he asks for.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Has it been stated how many persons have been punished, or have we been informed what was the constitution of the Court?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Yes, Sir.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Have we had the names of the officers who composed the Court?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: No, Sir.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman supply them?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: That was not asked in the question.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I will put the question down on Monday.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Government will give the House an opportunity of considering Supply?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government propose to ask the House to go into Committee of Supply on a day in next week, when it will be necessary to ask for some Votes. On the following Monday I hope to proceed with the Irish Estimates, taking the Constabulary Vote first.
  MR. SEXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the Irish Estimates will be separated from the rest?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: An appeal was made to me more than once by right ton. Gentlemen opposite to place the Constabulary Vote before the House as early as possible. I am responding to that appeal by fixing it, I hope, for Monday week.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in the event of the withdrawal of the extinction of licences clauses of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Duties Bill, the Government will consider the advisability of employing a portion of the extra Spirit Duty for the purpose of establishing a penny postage within the limits of the British Empire?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: With reference to the very important communication which you, Mr. Speaker, made to the House on Tuesday last in reply to the question of the hon. and learned Member for Longford, the Government have given their most respectful and careful consideration to the dicta which fell from you, and which they do not presume to question; and in submitting themselves to the highest Constitutional Authority on matters of Parliamentary practice, they have no alternative but to withdraw the provisions relating to the fund for the purchase of licences from the Local Taxation Bill. Under those circumstances when we proceed with the Bill, we shall move to omit on the Report
  78
  Sub-section 2 of the first clause, and in Committee Sub-section 2 of the second clause. On Clause 3 we shall move to omit Sub-section 1. Clauses 5, 6, and 7 will also go out of the Bill. With regard to Clause 8, I can only leave that clause in the hands of the House. With regard to the restriction on the issue of new licences, the Government are not prepared to enter into anything approaching a contest with the House on that clause, and if, therefore, it is proposed to raise Amendments, which are on the Paper to the extent of two pages, the only course open to the Government would be to withdraw that clause also. The Government, at a later date, will take into consideration all the various proposals which have been made with regard to the funds which will be released from the original appropriation under the Bill as it stands, and they will offer their recommendations to the House in the form of Amendments or a new clause to the Bill on a future day. But the Government reserve to themselves time for the consideration of the suggestions made in various parts of the House, in order that they may, as they hope, submit proposals which will meet with the general acceptance of the House.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.): May I ask if it is intended to reinstate Clause 8 in the Western Australia Bill?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I wish to widen the hon. Member's inquiry. The House is anxious for, and I may say is entitled to, some further information as to the course of public business. I, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman what additions he is prepared to make to the information he has already given us with regard to the immediate and the approaching course of business? The right hon. Gentleman has said that some nights next week are to be devoted to Supply, and that on Monday week the Irish Constabulary Vote will be taken. That is practically all the information we possess with regard to our prospects, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will feel we are entitled to ask, either to-day or on the earliest day that suits his convenience, for what I will call a revised edition of the statement he made a short time ago. For example, there is a Bill of very great importance in a state

  79
  of very great uncertainty, and as to which there ought not to be uncertainty much longer—that is the Bill relating to the collection of tithe. We have no idea whether there is any serious intention of going forward with that Bill, or, if so, when it will be taken. I think the inference must be that it will be definitely postponed. I ask for information on that subject and on the general intentions of the Government as to proceeding with Bills or dropping them.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman state now whether the Indian Council Bill, which stands for Monday, only stands formally for that day; if so, can he fix a day when the Bill will be taken?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I admit the reasonableness of the right hon. Gentleman's question, but I must ask for a few days in order to make a statement which may be regarded as definitive. I trust, however, the right hon. Gentleman will not assume that the Tithe Bill is not to be proceeded with, if, in the arrangements we make, we are unable to proceed with it next week. We are under the necessity of asking Votes in Supply on Thursday; and on being pressed by hon. Members as to the Irish Votes, I thought it best for the convenience of the House to state that Irish Supply would be taken on Monday week. The business for to-day and to-morrow will be found on the Paper. I hope it will be possible to complete the Debate on the Second Reading of the two Police Bills to-morrow. I think hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree that those Bills should be referred to either Standing or Select Committees. If it is not possible to read those Bills a second time tomorrow, then I shall have to ask that they be read a second time on Monday. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has prepared a Memorandum explanatory of the character of those Bills, which should, I think, be of considerable assistance in discussing them. I will state to-morrow what the business will be on Monday. It will be obvious that the business on the Paper to-night offers very few opportunities for difference of opinion. The Government do not propose to re-introduce Clause 8 into the Western Australia Bill. I am not able to state when the Indian Council Bill will be taken, but it will not be taken
  80
  on Monday. It must stand over until the more pressing Bills are disposed of.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: It will not be taken on Monday?
  *MR. W. H. SMITHwas understood to reply in the negative.
  *MR. CHILDERS (Edinburgh, S.): I wish to ask when the Scotch Police Superannuation Bill is proposed to be taken, and what Supply is to be taken on Thursday?
  MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.): Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the pledge given by the Home Secretary that the Scotch Police Superannuation Bill should be sent to a Select Committee?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: The Scotch Bill will be referred to a separate Select Committee. With regard to Supply, on Thursday it is intended to take the Army Estimates, and we shall put down the War Office Vote.
  MR. BAUMANN: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he did not give an undertaking to the House the other evening that when the Police Vote was disposed of he would put down the Colonial Vote. Will the right hon. Gentleman depart from that undertaking?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I do not think I undertook to finish any Vote. I said it would be desirable we should proceed with the consideration of the Vote; but I think it must be admitted that the Army Estimates must have precedence.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Do I understand my right hon. Friend to pledge the Government to proceed this Session with the Tithe Rent-charge Bill, or does he decline to give such a pledge?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I did not decline to pledge the Government to proceed with the Tithe Rent-charge Bill. On the contrary, my language was in the opposite direction.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take the Scotch and English Police Bills to-morrow; and, if so, will it be in order for the Scotch Members to speak on the general question of police as relating to Scotland on the Debate on the Second Reading of the English Bill?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am not an authority on points of order. But I have no doubt, Sir, that, with you in the Chair, due licence will be given to hon. Members during the discussion on the principle of superannuation, even if it should extend beyond the scope of the Bill on which the speech is made. I hope hon. Gentlemen will understand that we only ask them to accept the principle of superannuation on the Second Heading, and that, by assenting to the Second Reading, they will not bind themselves upon any question of detail.
  MR.H. H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.): I wish to ask whether the Government will not send the English as well as the Scotch Police Bill to a Select Committee? There is considerable opposition to referring it to a Grand Committee.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government are prepared to take either course as the House desires.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether the Government will give facilities for the Small Holdings Bill introduced by myself and the hon. Member for East Norfolk?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: My hon. and gallant Friend will see that the opportunities which the Government have of affording facilities are very limited.
  MR. CHANNING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the postponement of the Colonial Vote will deprive hon. Members of opportunities of discussing the Agreement between this country and Germany, and will he have the Colonial Vote set down for an early day?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I will endeavour to get the Vote forward as early as possible; but I think that colonial subjects have already been discussed during two evenings. [Cries of "No!"] The hon. Member will have the opportunity he desires.
  MR. H. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it is his intention to take the Navy Estimates?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I am unable to say.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to say whether he intends to take the fourth notice of Motion on the Paper to-night, the appointment of the Committee on the Procedure of the House? The names have only been put down to-day, and if it is desired by any hon. Member to substitute another name, it is not possible to do so without notice.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I was under the impression that it was desirable to take the Motion to-night. It is not usual to oppose these nominations, settled as they have been in the manner with which the hon. Member is familiar.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Whether it is usual or not, is it not absolutely necessary to give notice for the substitution of a name, and the rights of Members are lost if they do not give notice before the Motion comes on? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not persist in taking the Motion this evening, because it will be opposed.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: In regard to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the Police Superannuation Bill is to be referred to a Select Committee, is he aware that the question of police superannuation was examined in 1877, and is not this further reference to a Committee calculated very much to delay the matter?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I should be extremely sorry, as I am sure would be the House generally, if the Bill should be delayed by the reference to a Committee. While it is true the question of police superannuation was carefully examined by a Committee some years ago, the mode of settlement proposed in the Bill has had no such examination, and I could not resist the desire of hon. Members that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee for examination of the important details in the Bill. I trust the Committee will rapidly come to their Report.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: Then I would ask that the Committee should be struck at once, and nominated as soon as possible.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: Certainly; every effort will be made to secure despatch.
  MR. PICTON: With regard to Orders No. 13 and 14, the Reformatory Schools Bill and the Industrial Schools Bill, may we not have something more than a negative answer that they will not be taken to-night? There is a strong feeling among members of School Boards, especially in reference to the Industrial Schools Bill. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the Bills will be taken; can he give definite notice?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: Notice will be given. I am not able to say just now.
  DR FARQUHARSON (Aberdeen, W.): Is it the intention to take any other of the Army Estimates on Thursday but the War Office Vote? The Medical Vote is next, and as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, probably, there is the keenest interest taken in that Vote.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: We shall only take the War Office Vote.
  MR. BRUNNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us a distinct promise that the Motion for the appointment of the Committee on the Business of the House will not be taken to-night?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: No; I cannot do that.

  THE LOCAL TAXATION PROPOSALS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is proposed to allocate the proportional amounts of the Spirit Duty annually to England and Ireland, or is it to be a perpetual allocation? The Whisky Tax, of course, is passed, and will remain as a permanent tax; but I should like to know whether, in their new legislation, the Government will deal with this £40,000 for Ireland, and the larger sum for England for the year only, or will it be a general Bill to exist as long as the tax is in existence?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. and learned Member must be content to wait until he has our proposals before him on the Paper in the form of Amendments. The matter is receiving very careful examination, but when the hon. and learned Gentleman speaks of any particular tax as permanent, he must remember that it is open to every Chancellor of the Ex-
  84
  chequer to review the taxation of the country every year. It is quite possible, not to say probable, that this tax having been imposed for a particular object, might be dealt with next year.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: That is what I want to get at. We want to know, brewers and distillers naturally are anxious to know, as this tax was only put on for the purpose of compensation to publicans, which object is now abandoned, whether there will be this tax on the trade next year or not?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. and learned Gentleman must be content with my answer; I am not able to say what may happen next year.

  DEATHS PROM ELECTRIC CURRENTS IN THE UNITED STATES (CORRESPONDENCE).
  Copy ordered—
  "Of Correspondence between the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade with reference to Deaths from Electric Currents in the United States."—(Sir Michael Hicks Beach.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 259.]

  NAVY (SEAMEN AND STOKERS) (PER-CENTAGE OF RE-ENGAGEMENTS.
  Return ordered—
  "Showing the Result of an Inquiry into the Comparative Percentage of 500 Seamen and 500 Stokers, who Re-engage after 10 years' service; and of those who are lost to the Service by death, desertion, discharge, invaliding, or purchase during the first 10 years."—[Admiral Mayne.)

  ALDERSHOT ROADS BILL.—(No. 298.)
  Mr. Edwards-Moss, Mr. Conybeare, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, and Mr. Brodrick, nominated Members of the Committee, with three to be added by the Committee of Selection.
  Ordered, "That all Petitions presented against the Bill three clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Select Committee on the Bill, and that such of the Petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, Agents, or Witnesses, be heard upon their Petitions if they think fit, and Counsel heard in favour of the Bill against the said Petitions if desired."
  Ordered, "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."
  Ordered, "That three be the quorum."—(Mr. Brodrick.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  ALLOTMENTS ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 318.)
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Bill re-committed in respect of a new clause (Use of schoolroom free of charges).
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG,): I move this new clause in redemption of a promise made when the Bill was in Committee that facilities should be given for the holding of meetings for allotment purposes. It is not so extensive as an Amendment for a similar purpose in the name of the hon. Member for North Bucks, but I think if the Committee will look at it the clause does make the necessary provision for a meeting place.
  New Clause—
  "Any room in a school receiving a grant out of moneys provided by Parliament may, except during ordinary school hours, be used free of charge for the purpose of an inquiry under this Act, by the County Council or any Committee appointed under this Act; but any damage done to the room and any expense incurred by the person or persons having control over the room on account of its being so used shall he paid by the County Council,"
  —brought up and read the first and second time.
  MR. H. GARDNER: I move an Amendment in no hostile spirit to the present proposal, nor do I, by raising a dilatory Debate, wish to hinder the progress of the Bill through the House. It is needless for me to say that I share the opinion of many Members on this side that the Act of 1887, with this amending Act, is unsatisfactory and incomplete, and will rather tend to delay the settlement of the Allotments question in a broad and statesmanlike manner. But I have never sought to hinder this or similar measures on behalf of the bulk of my constituents, nearly all of whom are of the agricultural class. I have welcomed any measure, however incomplete, that would tend to improve the meagre income of the agricultural labourer, or alleviate his sometimes very hard lot
  86
  Hon. Members will not be surprised that I have put down an Amendment for the purpose of somewhat widening the effect of the clause, and, as I think, of improving it in the direction I have before advocated. For five years past, in this and the preceding Parliament, I have sought by Bill, Resolution, and conversations in Supply to try to persuade the Government and the House to adopt the principle that the village schoolroom should be open to the use of the ratepayers for local or national purposes, because I have felt it right that the ratepayers, who contribute towards the maintenance of the building, should have the use of it as occasion arises. There can be no doubt that a great necessity arises in villages for the use of such a large room on certain occasions. I am sure those who have contested rural constituencies since the Act of 1883 first called the rural population to the councils of the nation, must have been impressed with the necessity of a room of the kind for public meetings. As a rule there is no other building but the schoolroom available. In my own constituency, in some 80 villages, there are not more than four or five places where a room can be found for public meetings and we were plunged into dire necessity to find places to speak in. Bat the gesture of the Chairman warns me that I must not pursue these remarks. The object of my Amendment is not, of course, to hold political meetings, but in order that inhabitants of a village may have a place to hold their meetings, and discuss questions having reference to allotments. The necessity exists for such a place of meeting, for discussing matters affecting the public interest of the locality, ratepayers have a claim for the use of these buildings, and I go further, and say that in various Acts Parliament has conceded the right. The Parliamentary Elections Act of 1872 authorises the use of such schools for polling places, and there is in the words of the 6th Section an indication of why Parliament made this provision by reference to "any school receiving grants out of moneys provided by Act of Parliament," and in the opinion of Mr. Forster, expressed at the time, "it is no more than fair that the school room should be so used." In my opinion this amounts to a recognition of

  87
  the claim that ratepayers have upon the use of the schoolroom. This right was further confirmed by the Allotments Act of 1887.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE, Tower Hamlets, St. George's): It may, perhaps, save the hon. Member a long speech if I presume to interrupt him, and say that we are prepared to agree to his Amendment in this form, "or for the purpose of holding any public meeting necessary under this Act."
  MR. H. GARDNER: I am afraid I could not accept that Amendment. It is obvious that any meeting necessary under the Act is restrictive, and goes little beyond the clause as it is. I have in view meetings not necessary under the Act, but meetings of those interested in having the Act in operation, or desirous of representing their views as to the desirability of taking certain land for allotments. I was referring to the Allotments Act of 1887 in support of my contention that Parliament has recognised the right of the ratepayers to the use of the village schoolroom for meetings for local or national purposes. I mention this because it has been contended that in the Parliamentary Elections Act the State exercised a supreme right, and appropriated the schools for a national or Imperial purpose, but by the Allotments Act Parliament admitted that schools should be used for local purposes also. In the same sense is the clause now before us, and which I want to widen. It is obvious that for the actual purposes of the Act the school must be availed of, the inhabitants having no other place for public meeting. I am perfectly willing to accept any Amendment which will not defeat the object I have, that the ratepayers should have the right to use the schoolroom for the purpose of discussing any proposition in relation to the Act. I am ready to provide that such meetings shall be convened by not less than two ratepayers of the parish in which the school is situated, and that these shall be responsible for any damage to the room. I think I have made my meaning clear, and need not detain the Committee further. I only wish to impress upon the Government the importance of this matter in rural districts, and I shall certainly, if it is resisted, carry my Amendment to a Divi-
  88
  sion. Let me point out to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who represent agricultural constituencies, and make suave speeches I to their constituents, that by voting I against this Amendment they will be practically closing the mouths of rural communities, and preventing the carrying out of the Act.
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 6, after the word "Act," to insert the words "or for the purpose of holding public meetings to discuss propositions as to allotments under this Act."—[Mr. H. Gardner.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. LONG: The suggestion made by my right hon. Friend was not with any intention of limiting meetings to be held for the purpose of arriving at conclusions with reference to allotments, and the clause is brought forward in no niggardly spirit. We have no desire to prevent the fullest inquiry and discussion locally into allotment questions. I accept the spirit of the Amendment, although I think that its words are too vague, and require modification. I trust that it may be possible for the hon. Member, or the Committee, to frame an Amendment which shall express more clearly the meaning we are all agreed upon.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I congratulate the Government on the reasonable manner in which they meet this proposal. I think it very important that some such arrangement as is here suggested should be arrived at, and that my hon. Friend would do well if he would accept the offer made by the Government.
  MR. H. GARDNER: I accept the proposition made by the Government, and will, therefore, withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  (6.31.) Amendment proposed,
  In line 5, after the word "Act" to insert the words, "or for the purpose of holding public meetings to discuss any question relating to allotments under this Act or the principal Act."—(Mr. H. Gardner.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR W. PLOWDEN (Wolverhampton, W.): I do not think that the proposed addition to the clause will exactly meet what is wanted, as it would only give power to the County Council, or to any

  89
  Committees appointed under the Act, to make use of the rooms.
  MR. COBB (Warwick, S. E., Rugby): Do these words include the principal Act? I do not think they do, and I think the principal Act ought to be inserted.
  MR. BARING: I must protest against the way in which this question has been raised. The claim now made is based on the ground of the interest of the ratepayers in the school buildings; but a large majority of the schools are voluntary schools, to which the ratepayers contribute nothing whatever. The Government, however, seem to be so enamoured of surrender that I am not surprised at their giving way. It is not conducive to the peace of a parish that its schools should be liable to the incursion of any agitator who might choose to stir up perfectly contented villagers to demand allotments.
  MR. LLEWELLYN (Somerset, N.): A certain number of meetings will be absolutely necessary under the Bill—meetings at which the labourers may have the opportunity of fairly considering the proposals they wish to submit to the Local Authorities.
  MR. HENEAGE: I do not believe that the managers of any of the voluntary schools would be narrow minded enough to object to the clause, as amended.
  *MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.): I may state in illustration of the advantage of this proposal that in my own village meetings have been held for the formation of an association to carry out this object, and they have met with the co-operation of the Conservative Governors of the school.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill, and reported.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 3, page 2, line 22, to leave out the word "may" and insert the word "shall"—(Mr. Long.)
  MR. STEPHENS: I think it a very ungracious and unnecessary thing to over-ride the discretion of the County Councils in this matter. It is impossible for us to judge of all circum-
  90
  stances in different parts of the country where the County Councils have to act, and surely we may trust them to do their duty without fettering their discretion in this way.
  MR. LONG: This is not a question of the discretion of the County Councils. It is simply a provision that the Inquiry must be held by the County Council.
  MR. STEPHENS: I accept the statement of the hon. Gentleman.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Other Amendments made.
  Motion made, and Question, proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."
  *MR. CHANNING: I do not wish to raise any objection to the Third Reading of the Bill. Hon. Members on this side have taken no objection to the Bill itself. The object of the Instructions we put OIL the Paper has been simply to prove that this question will never be satisfactorily settled until other matters which the: Government have not seen fit to introduce into the Bill have been embodied in an Act of Parliament.
  MR. J. COLLINGS: I must congratulate the Government on having passed this Bill. I am certain it will prove a great relief from existing difficulties and be the means of facilitating the operation of the existing law so as to prove an immense boon to a large number of people.
  CAPTAIN VERNEY (Bucks, N.): And I, Sir, have to express my absolute uncertainty on the same subject.
  *MR. COBB: I am exceedingly grateful to the Government for the manner in which they have met us as to the use of the schoolrooms, and I shall not make the remarks which I intended to make on the Third Reading.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  BARRACKS BILL.—(No. 234.)
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 5.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: On this clause I beg to move, in page 4, line 3, after the word "money," to insert the words—

  91
  "and such estimate shall be laid before Parliament as soon as possible: Provided, that in framing such estimates regard shall be had to the provision of local centres for the combined training of the Regular and Auxiliary Forces, and the renewal and improvement of existing barracks and camps, and not to the provision of permanent accommodation for additional forces at great central camps."
  I understand that the Secretary of State proposes under this Bill to establish a great central camp at Aldershot, but in doing this the right hon. Gentleman will be defeating the plan of localisation which has been sanctioned by successive Governments and the House. We know that this Bill was smuggled through the House unexpectedly at a late hour in the evening when there was not time properly to discuss it. For my part, I admit the necessity of providing new barracks; and on this subject I think we have hitherto greatly neglected our duty, the existing barracks being for the most part in anything but a wholesome or sanitary condition, and unfit for the purposes of localisation. In my belief we shall have to spend not only the £4,100,000 provided by this Bill, but a considerable sum beyond that. When in India my attention was called to discussions which took place with regard to the provision of barracks, and the enormous sums expended and the blunders made in regard to those buildings. My impression is that before we have done with the barracks of the United Kingdom and our colonies, if we really put them into an efficient state, we shall have to spend a much larger sum than is provided for by this measure. I have long been of opinion that it is not desirable to concentrate the Army, and that it is much more desirable to carry out a good localisation scheme. We want a National Army for defence not defiance, and for this purpose we must have efficient barracks at Aldershot and other places. I deplore the fact that up to the present moment a system of localisation has not been carried out. If a large body of troops is to be concentrated at Aldershot or in any other locality, the result will be to cause the divorce between the Regular and Auxiliary Forces, which I regard as one of the greatest evils of the day, to be greatly exaggerated. I am confident that I have justification for what I say, because, on the very day when the Report
  92
  of the Second Reading of this Bill appeared, there was a letter published in the Times from a very distinguished General—General Adye, than whom there could not be a higher authority—giving expression to the very views I have ventured to submit to the Committee. Sir John Adye, writing to the Times on May 24, said—
  "The Minister for War, in his statement of February last, did not by any means limit his proposal to the removal of defects. On the contrary, he specially said that our troops were dribbled away throughout the country, and that the main object was concentration. It will be observed, for instance, that no less s sum than £1,475,000 is put down for Alder-shot alone, and that in addition to the considerable force of infantry already there, it is contemplated to build barracks for the permanent location of six more battalions; and the same scheme, on a smaller scale, is to be carried out at other places. According to my judgment, the principle of permanently massing our regular troops at a few stations is a faulty one, and is in entire opposition to the policy pursued of late years. The localisation of the depots in the various counties, which was commenced by the late Lord Card-well, was with a view not only of bringing our soldiers more into touch with the civil population, but of more closely associating them with the Militia and Volunteers. So far as it has gone, that measure has been very successful in popularising the Service, in facilitating recruiting, and in improving the Auxiliary Forces. I do not wish to imply that the massing of our troops of all arms, and of Regulars, Militia, and Volunteers, for purposes of instruction at the military camps, is not in every way advantageous. Such a system should be carried out annually. But these should be temporary and not permanent arrangements; and the regiments coming from a distance should be encamped. Camp life of itself is instructive to young soldiers, and healthy at the same time. The permanent concentration of the Regular Troops at comparatively few stations at home, thus isolating them, as it were, from the civil population of the various counties, I hold to be a bad principle. It is also to be observed that the proposal, costly as it is, does not add a man or a gun to the strength of our Army, and looking at the numerous and constant requirements of the Empire—in various parts of the world for garrisons, armaments, and other preparations, it appears to me that careful inquiry should be made before the country is committed to a vast expenditure for arrangements, founded chiefly on a principle of a doubtful character."
  I think it will be admitted, after reading that extract, that I do not act without authority in bringing this subject before the House. I will only quote from another letter which appeared in the Times, dated May 26th, and signed

  93
  "Major General." This Major General does not altogether agree with General Adye, but he agrees with him as to the localisation of the Forces. The Major General says—
  "Sir John Adye, in his anxiety to throw stones at our Administration, with which he has never been connected, has contrived to draw attention to the scheme originating from Lord Cardwell in 1872, which one may fairly say has cost the country some millions of money, with the result now of entailing in patchwork a few millions more. This was the establishment of county depots, an excellent plan in theory, hut one which has been, is, and will be always, most costly in its practical uses. These barracks were built of a stiff uniform pattern, without reference to either the population or the military requirements of the district, to hold a staff of about 240 soldiers of each regimental depot, and without apparently any notice of the proper requirements of the Auxiliary Forces of the district. The consequence is that, with two or throe exceptions, like Lichfield, Warley, and Fleetwood, there is no accommodation for the Militia battalions of the county when out for training, and the Militia and Volunteer Permanent Staff have to be provided with extra quarters at a very large addition to the lodging list, and a corresponding swelling of the annual Army Estimates. As they now stand, they cost nearly £1,000,000 a year, with the result of an unsufficient training to the Line recruit, and the dissatisfaction of the officers commanding Militia battalions as to the training of their own recruits. Sir John Adye blames the concentration of troops at military stations, but he forgets that at isolated stations there are few facilities for training troops or for rifle ranges at the long distances now required by the now arm; and though he proposes that they should be massed temporarily for these purposes, he should know that in these days the training of both horse and foot must go on uninterruptedly, summer and winter, in the same manner as the Royal Artillery. Even in General Sir John Adye's muzzle-loading days, they were compelled to keep up the instruction which deservedly now places that arm of Her Majesty's Service in the van of all other military nations. No doubt the sum asked for by Mr. Stanhope is large, but it is the result of the parsimonious cutting down of barrack estimates that has characterised every Administration up to the present time."
  I do not think that there could be a stronger opinion than that. I think these are very strong authorities to justify me in saying that I think Her Majesty's Government ought to devote more of this money to increased localisation, and I think £1,000,000 a year might be saved if you only had proper barracks. I was very much struck by some words which fell from an eminent authority at the time of the Debate on the Channel
  94
  Tunnel Bill. He said that we need not trouble ourselves about Channel tunnels, but should rely on our land defences. I have long urged that we are living in a fool's paradise. Our Army is dispersed all over the world, and we very much need a good and efficient land defence. An Army might be hurled upon us from the Continent, and the only efficient means of resistance is an effective combination of the Auxiliary and Regular Forces—in fact, a National Army. We have the Return obtained on the Motion of the hon. Member for Bradford showing that at this moment we are spending £38,000,000 on our defences, though I believe with what is to be spent on barracks the sum is nearly £40,000,000. Instead of listening to old women about the Channel Tunnel, I say it would be much better that we should look to our land defences. A first step to the real and efficient localisation of the forces is to provide barracks which the authorities I have quoted tell you are necessary. Take Switzerland, where every man is trained for the national defence, and where may be seen an example which we might very well imitate. But if you want to exercise men in large masses, you must bring them into camp and under canvas. That will teach the men to help themselves and fit them for real campaigning. Therefore, Sir, I very much protest against this huge centralisation, and against this distrust which Sir John Adye and others seem to have of localisation. The best way of securing-ourselves is to have a great National popular Army, and which, being popular, will not be aggressive. Now that there is a popular Army in France that country is the least inclined to aggression, and Ministers immediately become unpopular who invite danger to the nation. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 3, after the word "money" to insert the words "and such estimate shall be laid before Parliament as soon as possible, provided1 that in framing such estimates regard shall be had to the provision of local centres for the combined training of the Regular and Auxiliary Forces, and the renewal and improvement of existing barracks and camps, and not the pro vision of permanent accommodation for additional forces at great central camps."—{Sir G. Campbell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. HANBURY: Mr. Courtney, there is a good deal, I confess, in the Amendment brought forward by the hon. Member, but I think we are entitled to a little more information from the Secretary for War as to the methods by which the barracks are to be kept up and the purposes for which the are going to be built. We have heard so much about the unsanitary dwellings of the troops and the danger to the life and health of many of them that we want to be sure that, in connection with the barracks that are going to be built, the money will not be wasted in the same way. On what system ire they going to be built—by contract or competition, and with the supervision of engineers? We have seen the rascally kind of buildings run up for the London School Board. I want to see that our troops, at any rate, are not housed in buildings of that kind. I want to know exactly what precautions my right hon. Friend has taken against dangers of that kind so far as our barracks are concerned. Not only have we had experience of the Board School buildings, but we have had experience of the barracks at Bedford, as to which a local Surveyor reported the other day. I should like to know who is going to be the person positively responsible for these buildings. We have had the responsibility shuffled, first on the doctors by the engineers, and then on the engineers by the doctors, in respect of the barracks to which I refer; and I think we ought to have some positive information, before we spend all this money, as to who is going to be responsible for the sanitary arrangements of the buildings. I do hope my right hon. Friend' will trust a little more to the men who are actually sent, and a little less to Surveyors and officials of that kind. Take the barracks at Dublin, for instance. Commissioner after Commissioner, and Surveyor after Surveyor reported that the houses were theoretically right. Then, at last, they sent a man who took up the floors, and found that everything was as bad as it possibly could be. I should like to know, also, over what period of time this work is to be extended. We know very well that, so far as many of the existing
  96
  barracks are concerned, the matter is very pressing indeed. I think we ought to know something as to the scheme for the concentration of the troops. First one Minister, and then another, brings forward some proposal. Is this a newfangled scheme of my right hon. Friend, and does he intend to upset the localisation scheme? The localisation is beginning to work effectively for the first time, and, though the present system is not by any means perfect, it is working a great deal better than it did. If my right hon. Friend interferes with that system, I believe he will have very great difficulty with regard to recruiting, whether trade revives or not. If he draws men away from their localities, I am sure he will not get either so many or so good a class of recruits as in the past.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOB WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): I do not interfere in any way with the scheme of localisation.
  MR. HANBURY: I am very glad my questions have brought out that fact. I wish to know whether my right hon. Friend is going to concentrate the First Army Corps at Aldershot or not. It is very important to know that. And what is he going to do with the Second Army Corps, which is not in existence yet? There is a feeling in the North that its home ought to be in the North. I think the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy is entirely met by the statement of my right hon. Friend, and I congratulate him upon having given so clear an enunciation of his views; at the same time, I must warn him against the danger that this scheme of his will be a mixture of two schemes—a scheme of compensation on the one hand, and of localisation on the other; and that he will not get the advantage of either scheme. That is a danger which certainly occurs to me. Although I agree, to a certain extent, with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, I must say that my objections are largely removed by the statement of my right hon. Friend.
  SIR W. BARTTELOT (Sussex, N. W.): I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend say that it was absolutely necessary that the various arms should be concentrated. I have always urged that the First Army Corps should

  97
  be seen so that the country might know that it was effective and efficient. It is said that it is soon paper; but what we want is that we shall be able to see it in reality. We shall have an opportunity, no doubt, when these new barracks are built, of seeing the First Army Corps in all its abundance at Aldershot. There can be nothing more important than these proposals to improve the sanitary conditions of the dwellings of our troops. It may save discussion if my right hon. Friend tells us whether he is going to distribute troops in certain strategic positions where they can be available for the large towns at a moment's notice. I should like to know how that scheme is being carried out. As to the cavalry regiments, I understood him to say that all small detachments should be done away with and the regiments concentrated in one place; this would, indeed, be a great improvement. In Manchester, for instance, the cavalry regiment now quartered there are to have new barracks at some convenient station not far from Manchester, where they can have plenty of space to drill. These are questions which deserve careful consideration. We have got £4,000,000, a certain portion of which is to be spent every year. We should like to know that the money will be expended, notwithstanding changes of Ministers, on lines that will be approved by the House of Commons. These new arrangements, as described by my right hon. Friend, are, I am satisfied, in the best interests of the troops, and it is a pity they were not made long ago. I am quite sure that whatever sum of money is spent, if it is only applied in the interests of the Army and to the improvement of the health of our soldiers, the public will not grudge it.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy based a large part of his speech on certain correspondence in the Times, especially that of Sir John Adye. I am not going to depreciate the authority of Sir John Adye, but I must say I prefer his practice to his theory. Sir John Adye's recommendation to the Secretary for War was that he should spend money, not on increasing accommodation at local centres, but on re-building the permanent camps. But if you look at the figures of Sir John Adye, you will find that the work he recommended to be
  98
  carried out would, at the rate of progress then made, take, at least, 150 years to accomplish. With regard to the localisation of the Forces, I will say at once that the scheme before the House in no way interferes with that scheme. I believe the scheme is working well, and I have not the smallest desire to interfere with it in any way; but I will do all in my power to make it more effective. The present scheme is necessitated, in the first instance, by the lamentable condition of many of our camps and barracks. It is necessitated also by our desire, if we do build barracks, to concentrate our troops more than we have done before. We hope to concentrate to a very considerable extent batteries of Artillery, so that there shall be, wherever possible, at least two batteries together, and, when possible, three. With regard to cavalry, we hope to be able, in certain circumstances, to enlarge the barracks, so that each may hold one complete regiment. In the case of Manchester, we propose to build a completely new cavalry barrack at some distance from the town, and to get rid of the present barrack, which is in a very inconvenient position, and certainly is not suited for the purpose to which it is now devoted. A large sum would have to be spent in putting the present building into a good condition; and we think it better, on all grounds, to remove the troops to a point some little distance from Manchester, where they will be available on short notice for any service for which they may be required. We have not yet decided what that place shall be, but we hope before long we may be able to arrive at a decision.
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS (Birmingham, S.): What does the right hon. Gentleman propose in relation to the cavalry in Birmingham?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: We shall certainly not keep those cavalry barracks. We think there is every ground to justify us for removing the cavalry from Birmingham. I have also been asked questions with reference to concentrated camps. Our policy has been to try and concentrate infantry in great camps. This has been done at Aldershot and the Curragh, and in one or two smaller camps. This we believe to be an enormous advantage. We think our small army will be made much more efficient

  99
  if our infantry can be concentrated with a small amount of cavalry and artillery, in order that they may practice manœuvres, as is done in other countries. It is very difficult in this country to find a space in which manœuvres can be carried out, but Aldershot seems to supply the best means for the purpose. We do not think we shall be able to get all the troops of the First Army Corps together at Aldershot, but we hope a large proportion of them will be concentrated there, and we are keeping the regiments first for service up to their full strength, in order that we may be able to meet any sudden demand for sending abroad a force of 8,000 or 10,000 men. I have been asked whether we intend to try the experiment of concentrating the First Army Corps. I assure my hon. Friend who put the question that I believe we could carry out that experiment with the greatest success, but we do not do it because of the enormous expense it would involve. The cost of a similar concentration in the South of France last year was enormous, and the same would be the case in this country. The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) asks how the new barracks are to be built. They are going to be built by contract. Plans are being prepared, and tenders will be called for.
  MR. HANBURY: Under what system of competition—a pretty general competition?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: Yes; there will be very general competition. The hon. Member also asks who is responsible for the sanitary state of the new barracks. I have explained to the House that I think, on the whole, the safest and the best way of assuring that our new barracks are built on sound and sanitary principles is to re-constitute Lord Herbert's Sanitary Committee.
  MR. HANBURY: Who will pass the barracks?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: There will be power in the Sanitary Committee to make an inspection of any barracks at any time, so as to see whether the plans they pass are carried out. I am perfectly satisfied that with this supervision we shall be able to provide new barracks on a thoroughly sound principle. My hon. Friend asks how long it will take to carry out the scheme. It must take
  100
  some years; I do not myself entertain any hope that we can complete the whole of the scheme in less than seven years. We intend to deal first with those cases in which the sanitary requirements need the greatest attention. On the whole, we think that it is the best course. I hope we shall be able to complete the work in a shorter period than I have mentioned, but I should be deceiving the House if I held out confident expectations that we could complete the whole of the work not only in England but in the Colonies within a less time than I have mentioned. As to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), I have only to say that I am wholly unable to accept it, and I hope the hon. Member will not press it.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman very properly and clearly pointed out to the House the distinction between what we term the localisation of the Army and the distribution of the troops quartered at home The localisation of the Army is a term which has come to be well known, and implies a scheme by which recruits are obtained and perform the first part of their drill in this country. It has, however, nothing to do with the stationing or quartering of regiments. Without having any strong opinion on the subject myself, I think I may say, with some confidence, that the Military Authorities have the greatest objection to the idea of any regiment being necessarily quartered in any particular part of the country. All that was attempted to be done by the localisation scheme was to secure connection in recruiting between a certain district and a certain regiment, and to bring the Auxiliary and the Regular Forces as much as possible in harmony. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Horsham (Sir W. Barttelot) that there are too many Brigade Depots or depot centres, as they are sometimes called. They are too small, and in many respects are not as efficient as they might have been. This was brought about by the necessities of the time when the scheme came into existence, and was largely occasioned by the necessity of consulting the prejudices and jealousies of the different counties. But to attempt now to do away with some

  101
  of these depôt centres, where the buildings have been erected, and to replace them with others would involve an enormous expense. The scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War is a scheme for shifting to a certain extent the quarters where the troops serving at home are distributed, and generally putting the barracks throughout the kingdom in a more habitable condition. I am bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman appears to me to have approached a very difficult question with much courage as well as discretion. I think those who know most about it will probably be strongest in their opinion that it is most undesirable to keep small detachments of troops isolated in towns, and frequently in most unfavourable circumstances, both for health and discipline. Of course, the original object in scattering the forces in that way was that they might be more ready to assist in the preservation of the peace, but the whole railway system has been brought into being since that distribution was made. I know there has been a good deal said by distinguished officers, whose opinion I value very highly, against the concentration of troops in large camps. One distinguished officer has published the opinion that the troops should not be kept in barracks, but ought to live in their own homes. I cannot say I share the opinion that this is either desirable or possible at the present time, and I think there is great advantage in establishing at Aldershot and one or two other places in the country an aggregation of corps of the different arms, so as to enable them to receive thorough training. By this means I hope there will be avoided those frequent movements of troops, which are so costly to the country, and which occasion so much inconvenience to all concerned. As I have already remarked, a point on which the House of Commons has not received sufficient information is the most material one of whether the number of troops for which we are now providing improved accommodation is really required in this country at all. It may be so, but we have no reason to believe that this matter has been carefully gone into in view of the recent changes made in the military and naval defences of the country. Allusion has
  102
  been made to the First Corps d'Arm°e, and a hope has been expressed that it may be brought together at Aldershot. I am in a very incredulous and sceptical frame of mind about the First and the Second Corps d'Arm°e. I know the right hon. Gentleman believes in them firmly. For my own part, although there may be some utility in having an organisation of this kind, as it may serve as a limit up to which to build, as it were, I never have been able to see why we should endeavour to form our troops at home, being, as they are, a reservoir for various foreign services, into an organisation which is more fit for Continental warfare than for any purpose to which they are ever likely to be devoted in this country. As to the sanitary question, I think it is rather too hard that we should always have the Royal Barracks in Dublin, and other barracks which are in an insanitary condition, brought forward as instances of what the new barracks are to be. The old barracks are insanitary because they are built on the old sites, and many of them on cesspools.
  MR. HANBURY: I distinctly alluded to the Bedford Barracks, which were built recently.
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: At all events I think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. E. Stanhope) has taken what will be an effective course in re-appointing the Sanitary Commission. I hope my hon. Friend behind me will not press his Amendment, because the object at which it aims is really the same object as the right hon. Gentleman has in view as far as it is compatible with the conditions of our Service.
  MR. JEFFREYS (Hants, Basingstoke): Allusion has been made to the popularity of the Army, and I am certain we shall never keep up the popularity of our Army until we keep our troops in good barracks. I wish to ask my right hon. Friend whether in the new barracks accommodation has been provided for married officers. At the present time a great many field officers are married men, and they either have barrack accommodation in the shape of a hut at Aldershot or a lodging allowance of £60 a year. I believe that under this scheme these officers are only to have two rooms, which, of course, is insufficient accommodation for a married man.

  103
  I hope my right hon. Friend will give this question his attention.
  MR. ROUND (Essex, N. E., Harwich): I am glad to hear what the Secretary of State for War has said, as to the further' concentration of our Military Forces under the provisions of this Bill; and I believe the Committee will approve of the reappointment of the old Sanitary Committee. I wish to ask my right hon. Friend for some information respecting the proposed alterations in the barracks at Colchester. A Parliamentary Return has been sent to Members showing the amounts proposed to be spent upon the different barracks, and I was surprised to find that there was a smaller sum allotted to Colchester out of the Vote for £4,000,000 than to any other camp. My right hon. Friend went down there the other day and inspected them, and no doubt he observed the unsatisfactory condition of the huts occupied by the Infantry. Those huts were built for the accommodation of the German legion nearly 40 years ago. And I think that if huts elsewhere are to be replaced by brick structures these should be included. I would press on the right hon. Gentleman the urgency and the necessity of thoroughly re-constructing the huts in the interests of our young soldiers.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (Leith, &c.): I wish to add one word to what was said by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Jeffreys) in regard to the officers' quarters. There are some barracks which not only have no provision for married officers, but have none for single officers, and I would submit to the Secretary for War the expediency of providing accommodation for officers in the barracks of the brigade of Guards in London.
  SIR F. FITZWYGRAM: In the remarks I wish to make I am afraid I shall place myself somewhat in opposition to the views of many officers. I agree that the concentration of troops is absolutely necessary, but I think it should not take place in barracks. My idea is that we should have for the use of our troops two central canvas camps, and that the troops should be sent there for about six weeks' practice a year. The adoption of such a system would, I believe, be equally valuable to the officers in com-
  104
  mand and to the men. There are, I think, only two uses in the concentration of troops. The first is to give practice to general officers, and the second to accustom troops to camp life. Six weeks' practice in tactics and manœuvres, so far as general officers and colonels of regiments are concerned, would be quite sufficient. If a man who has attained to the rank of a field officer cannot pick up the aptitude of handling bodies of troops in six weeks I do not think he is likely to do it at all. I have seen colonels come to Aldershot unable to handle troops, stay there for two years, and be unable to handle troops when they leave. I attach the greatest possible value to the training of senior officers. But I think the officer who gains-most from the system of concentration ought to be the commander-in-chief. He is, or ought to be, constantly over at Aldershot watching the manœuvres of the troops and ascertaining the capacity of the senior officers. Having gained a knowledge of their capacity he would be able on the outbreak of war to employ those officers whom he found best able to handle troops. The gain in concentration of troops is to the senior officers. Company officers learn absolutely nothing. It does not make the slightest difference to a company officer whether there are 10,000 or 100,000 men in the field, because he simply has to take the word of command from his senior officer, and the same as regards the rank and file. The gain to the soldiers is, or at least ought to be, knowledge of camp life. I want to see the soldiers trained to camp life. At present, as far as alt practical knowledge of camp life is concerned, men leave Aldershot just as ignorant as they go there. The men are on the Barrack Establishment. I should like to see them under canvas. I should like to see live oxen and sheep driven to Aldershot and killed and cooked there. I should like to see the bread ration abolished, and flour served up and bread baked in camp kitchens. Everyone who is acquainted with life in the field knows the privations from which men suffer, who are untrained to life under canvas. How, on the other hand, when they have got used to it, they make themselves perfectly comfortable and happy. Camp life, like other life, requires practice—it cannot all be learned in a day.

  105
  Instead of building great barracks at Aldershot, York, and Curragh, I think the barracks should be built for the men in their county towns where their friends live. I am sure they would feel happier and better, and I believe more good would be done than by anything else to promote the recruiting of the Army. It may be said that commanding officers require to be under a general and brigadier to brush them up. I do not deny that a good many commanding officers are a great deal better for being under a general for a short time, but I deny that it is good training for a commanding officer to be constantly under the eye of a general, inasmuch as he ought to be ready to take responsibility upon himself. I look upon out-quarters as most valuable. If officers learn to act for themselves when they are young they become more fitted for taking higher commands. This is especially the case in regard to cavalry regiments, the officers of which, in time of war, have constantly to perform duties which require a good head and plenty of self-reliance. If they are always kept together at headquarters they will never have the opportunity of acting for themselves. I have seen a good many regiments at Aldershot which had been long quartered together, which were on arrival perfect in parade movements, but which were found to be very deficient, when they came to be knocked about in manœuvres. I utterly deny that there is any advantage to be gained by building large permanent barracks at York or Aldershot. To my mind it is merely the perpetuation of an evil system.
  MR. MURPHY (Dublin, St. Patrick's): I wish to draw attention to the question of the material to be used in the construction of the Irish barracks. I am willing to admit that a very considerable amount of this money is to be appropriated to works in Ireland. I would point out, however, that the designs for the new buildings are made in the War Office in London, and are based on the assumption that English building materials will be used. I would submit to the right hon. Gentleman that it is only reasonable the Department should make some effort to utilise as far as possible the materials to be found in Ireland. It would not involve any additional expense, but, on the
  106
  contrary, would be attended by consider able economy. It is hardly reasonable or proper to carry stone from England to Ireland, where plenty of stone for building purposes is to be found, and still such things have been done, and I called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact about a year ago. I would also draw attention to the question of the designs for the barracks. Those designs do not appear to have improved with the improved ideas respecting buildings of other characters in this country in recent years. They seem to have in the War Office a stereotyped form, which they always stick to.
  MAJOR RASCH (Essex, S. E.): I would point out, with reference to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell) that, if carried, it would have the effect of reducing the Aldershot Division to about 3,000 or 4,000 men. The hon. Member suggested that canvas should be substituted for barracks. I do not think, if the hon. Gentleman were under canvas himself from now to Christmas, it would conduce to his morale or efficiency.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I did not suggest that they should live permanently under canvas, but that they should be under canvas for six weeks in the summer.
  MAJOR RASCH: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Member. With regard to the Aldershot huts, they are in an absolutely ruinous condition, and those at Colchester and Shorncliffe are very much the same. At Shorncliffe, when I was there, the men had to shift their cots round the huts whenever there was a change of wind, because the rain absolutely drifted through the walls. I would suggest that you are not likely to encourage recruiting to house a man in a sort of inferior cowshed. Allusion has been made to the opinion of Sir John Adye. He is, no doubt, a general of great experience, but I do not think his name carries great weight among some Members of this House. He is principally known to Members as being the Director General of Ordnance at the time when the 35,000 swords which bent and broke and gave such unsatisfactory results in the Soudan Campaign were obtained, and he is also known as being a distinguished advocate of the Channel Tunnel. The hon.

  107
  Gentleman suggested that the depot centres should be improved. I think he is quite right, but we must remember that the present Secretary for War has done a great deal for the dep6t centres, and that it is owing to his energy and courage in the matter that nearly 90 per cent, of the Militia regiments that used to be in camps are now in barracks. The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) is quite right in asking that due supervision shall be exercised with reference to the building of these new quarters. I think he is perfectly right. We do not want to see repeated the fiasco that occurred in Belfast some time ago when the plans got mixed, and a building, with verandahs and so on, intended for Hong Kong, was put up in Belfast, while the Belfast plans were sent to Hong Kong. I think the War Office officials are entitled to commendation for the way in which they have elaborated the present schemes.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I have been asked to consider the question of officers' quarters. The plans for officers' quarters in our camps have been considered thoroughly satisfactory by the architects whose opinion has been taken upon them. With regard to Colchester, I admit a good deal remains to be done there, but the camp there is incomparably better than those at Aldershot and Shornclifie.
  *MR. ROUND: Does the right hon Gentleman think the huts are better?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: Certainly I do. A good deal of money must be spent at Colchester, and I do not want to be tied down to £he precise sums given in our Estimate. I saw there were palpable and gross evils that ought to be remedied at Colchester. The hon. and gallant Member for Hampshire (Sir P. FitzWygram) has practically admitted that his views were not shared by the majority of officers in the Army, and in that he is quite right. Certainly, the officers I have consulted are absolutely unanimous in favour of the concentration of troops at Aldershot and elsewhere as best calculated to advance the interests of the Army. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) has asked me whether the present number of troops is required. That matter has been very carefully considered by the Government. I do
  108
  not believe at all that we have too-many troops, looking to the fact of the increasing demands made upon us to supply increasing garrisons at our coaling stations. May I hope that now we may be allowed to proceed with the remaining portions of the Bill?
  MR. WADDY: I should like to know whether it is proposed that anything should be done with the barracks at Dover? I have seen those barracks, the floors of which are absolutely reeking with moisture. Surely men ought not to be required to reside in such a place, at any rate when there is no actual war proceeding.
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: The barracks, at Dover will be dealt with in the course of the present year.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I thought I was going to be sat upon all round; but I think the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hamphire (Sir P. FitzWygram) fully justifies me in taking the course I have adopted. That speech was the speech of a practical man. It seems, to me that Secretaries of State for War are morally coerced by the opinions of the military men by whom they are surrounded. These men wish to have a large Regular Army, and dislike to be muddled up with what they call second rate Auxiliaries. I am not entirely without knowledge of this matter. I have seen a great many troops, and I was particularly struck by what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said with regard to the accommodation of troops. It so happened that I was with the first column at Delhi in 1857. I was surprised at the extraordinary difference between the men who had been in camp! and those who came from England. Those who had been in camp were healthful and good in every way, but the new troops were utterly helpless. They could do nothing for themselves. Now so far from objecting to improve defective barracks, I have expressed the opinion that before you have done you will spend a great deal more than £4,000,000 on the work. It seems to me that the Secretary of State disposed of the question of localisation in a very light and airy way. He says the War Office do not intend to interfere with localisation in the least degree; but I do not find

  109
  from the Schedule of the way in which this money is to be spent a single farthing is to be spent on localisation or local centres. I maintain that you are starving out the system of localisation. If localisation is not to be interfered with why are you bringing six more regiments to Aldershot? I confess the Secretary of State has thrown a new light on this matter. I have always supposed, and I think others have, that localisation meant localisation of the troops, but the right hon. Gentleman tells us, under the advice of the military gentlemen surrounding him, it means nothing of the kind, that localisation never contemplated the localisation of troops, but the localisation of recruiting districts. I do not think the country has understood that that is what is meant by localisation. But as both sides are against me I do not think it is well I should go to a Division. I will only ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has any objection to the first part of my Amendment, namely, "that such Estimates shall be laid before Parliament as soon as possible."
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: I am afraid I cannot undertake to adopt that.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Then I submit myself to the opinion of the Committee.
  LORD H. BRUCEwas understood to say that it was proposed to do now what ought to have been done previously year by year.
  DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid): 7 am anxious to receive some information 3 to the alterations at the Royal arracks, Dublin. I understand that a large sum of money is to be spent on the Dublin Barracks; but I have heard from Royal Engineers and others competent to form an opinion, that instead of pulling down the barracks and building them again what ought to be done would be to do away with the old wood flooring which is promoting the disease in the barracks. The War Office find they can get this money very easily, and I suppose they mean to spend it easily. I would suggest that an independent inquiry should be instituted into the condition of the Royal Barracks, because I am convinced that what is needed could be done at a much less cost than is contemplated. Also, I should like to know what is going to be done at the Curragh, whether any portion of the money is going to be spent there? Not
  110
  long ago we received very unsatisfactory replies from the right hon. Gentleman as to the sanitary condition of the permanent barracks there.
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: There will be at least £420,000 at the Curragh.
  DR. TANNER: And at the Royal Barracks?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: I cannot give the exact figure, but a considerable sum of money will be required to be expended there.
  DR TANNER: Then, is a great portion of the existing structure to be pulled down?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: Only a portion, because the walls are not strong enough to support the stores we propose to place there. The main portion will not be pulled down.
  (8.30.) Question put, and negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 6.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL(9.7.) SIR G. CAMPBELL rose.
  DR. TANNER: I beg, Mr. Courtney, to call your attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members present.
  THE CHAIRMAN: In the face of the fact of so large a number of Members having been recently in attendance it would be trifling with the House to count. Sir George Campbell.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  DR. TANNER: Am I to understand, Sir, that I am not within my right—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, older!
  DR. TANNER: Am I not within my right—seeing that half-an-hour has elapsed since there was the large attendance to which you have referred, and that there may not be the number of Members in the premises—in calling your attention to the state of the House?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! There is authority for my action, and I am acting upon that authority. Sir George Campbell.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to move the omission of Clause 6, which gives power to the Treasury to borrow or raise money for [the purposes of the Act. I say, as I have said before, that I do not object to spending money upon

  111
  barracks, provided that the money is raised in the right way; but I object to this un-Constitutional and unjustifiable method of borrowing money in a time of peace and of great prosperity, when there ought to be plenty of money in the Treasury. No doubt we are indebted to the head of the Foreign Office and the Ministry for the fact that at the present moment we have complete peace; but it is because we have that complete peace that I object to the extraordinary and preposterous proposal to borrow money for a necessary public purpose. Barracks are a necessary purpose. If we keep up an Army we must have barracks to house the men. The barracks we have are insufficient, and it seems to me that if we have spent too little on them in previous years we ought to take advantage of a good and prosperous year when we have a surplus, and make up for the insufficiency out of that surplus. I find that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton raised the question on the measure for Naval Defence last year, and showed that the plan proposed by the Government was without precedent, and that, when spending money on a similar object, Lord Palmers-ton had only borrowed from year to year, taking Parliamentary sanction for what he did each year. I hold that this year there is no necessity for borrowing, seeing that there is plenty of money in the Exchequer, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made provision for paying away large sums for purposes which are absolutely unnecessary, and which are distasteful to the majority of the people of this country. According to the figures obtained by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) it seems that the cost of the defences of the country has reached an enormous amount, namely, £38,321,433. But that is not all, because we now have this expenditure on barracks. We are this year finding £300,000 out of the Budget surplus for barracks. I should like to know if that is all we are going to spend this year?
  THE CHANCELLOR or THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's, Hanover Square): Yes.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Then I think it ought not to be. To my mind a great deal more should be spent, if all we hear
  112
  is true with regard to the Dublin Barracks and the Aldershot huts. The proposal of the Bill will give the Government power to borrow without coming to Parliament, and that I hold to be a very objectionable power, which should not be allowed. The Government proposal, moreover, seems to me very like the old evil practice which has been so strongly condemned in times past of granting enormous subventions in aid of local rates. No doubt the people who get the subventions—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: My argument is that this money is given in a way that it ought not to be given, and that the barracks ought to be built out of the surplus, and not out of money borrowed for the purpose. The Government, it seems, are going to put off the construction of the barracks.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Member, I presume, does not wish to misrepresent my statement. I asked the Secretary of State for War what was the maximum amount he wished to spend this year, as I was prepared to find out of the Revenue of the year the sum required. I was assured that the amount stated in the Bill was the maximum which would be required for the present year. We take no power to borrow in future years.
  DR. CLARK: I beg, Sir, to call your attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members present.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  DR. CLARK: There are not 40 Members present, Sir.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot be aware of the circumstances under which I have just declined to take notice of a similar observation.
  DR. CLARK: Are there 40 Members present?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Sir George Campbell.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: The Government, I suppose, can borrow money in future years without coming to Parliament for sanction, and that is what I object to. It puts us in a very difficult position. We have heard from the Secretary for War that the condition of the Dublin barracks is extremely bad—that some of the officers have been dying—and it seems to me that the necessities are so great that there will

  113
  be a remissness on our part if obtaining power to raise £4,100,000 we do not spend more than £300,000 in the present year. We are told on the highest authority that Lord Palmerston did not ask for authority to borrow money in future years, and that for the permanent defences of the country he only borrowed the money he required for the then current year. What are the Government doing by this clause? They say, "We do not want to borrow money during the present year, but we want to take this matter out of the hands of future Parliaments." That is to say, they want now, in a thin House, when almost everybody is away at dinner, and 40 Members are not present, to take power which will enable them to spend money in future years without coming to Parliament for power to do so. They want to escape from the control of Parliament, and to be able to snap their fingers at this House. The proposal is distinctly un-Constitutional, and on that and every other ground I am entitled, I think, to move that this clause be deleted.
  Amendment moved, pages 4 and 5, to leave out Clause 6.—(Sir G. Camphell.)
  Question proposed, "That Clause 6 stand part of the Bill."
  DR. TANNER: I trust the Committee will have an opportunity of dividing on this clause. I would ask to be allowed to say that when I moved a count just now it was quite as much for the purpose of letting the Members know that yon, Sir, had taken the Chair as for any other purpose. I wished to give hon. Members an opportunity of being present in their places, and of assisting in the discussion of this question. I trust, Sir, that you will pardon my making this remark. When the messenger from the House goes down into the Lobby and says, "The Chairman is in the Chair," nine hon. Members out of ten do not hear him, and do not come and take their places. It was for the purpose of bringing them in that I called attention to the fact that there were not 40 Members present. I have called attention to the fact that a large number of these barracks are in a bad state. I will not refer to the matter any further now, but will leave it to the responsibility of the Government. I will only say that it appears to me extraordinary that at a
  114
  time when they have a surplus of £3,500,000 the Government should come and ask us to pledge the country to the extent proposed in the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had all the facts before him at the commencement of the Session. He knew this large amount of money was to be spent in fixing up the barracks in England, Ireland, and Scotland, and I think it would have been far wiser on his part to have devoted the money of his surplus to this purpose rather than to an attempt to enrich the publicans of the country. If he had done this it would have been far more in the interests of economy and he would have found himself in a far happier position than that which he now unfortunately occupies. However, it is never too late to mend, and I sincerely trust the right hon. Gentleman will accept the advice which has been tendered to him by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, and omit this portion of the Bill. If he does not do that, at any rate let him agree to pay this money out of the surplus that may accrue next year. I did not rise for the purpose of prolonging the Debate, as=I think it would be unwise to do so, but unless we receive some reply from a responsible Minister of the Crown we shall have to divide the Committee.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I cannot complain of hon. Members like the Member for Kirkcaldy keeping an eye on the proposals of the Government, but I must say I think he has not quite appreciated those proposals. We have followed the precedent of 1872, save that during the present Session I have thought it right to pay the amount necessary this year out of the surplus. And in regard to the execution of great works, we have followed the course of not allowing the cost to fall on one particular year, and have taken power to borrow in future years. If we had borrowed no money during this year, the charge would fall on following years. In what we are doing we are really bearing our share.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I quite admit my mistake with regard to the present year, but I think the observations of the right hon. Gentleman enormously strengthen my position. The Government are going to borrow in future years, though they do not know

  115
  whether the money will be wanted or not. We have the precedent set by Lord Palmerston in regard to very large defence works in borrowing money for the current year and not for future years. It does seem to me a very grave and serious consideration. How do we know what will be the state of finance next year? It is extremely probable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not require to borrow next year. Why should he take away from a future Parliament the decision whether or not the money should be borrowed? I am convinced that this is a great Constitutional question, and I must go to a Division.
  (9.35.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 134; Noes 79.—(Div. List, No. 160.)
  Amendments made.
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: The object of the clause I am about to move is solely that when a question of compensation arises it shall be settled by an arbitrator instead of by a Jury.
  New Clause—
  "Where land is acquired under 'The Defence Act, 1842,' and the Acts amending the same, the compensation to be paid for the land may, if both parties agree, be settled by arbitration, instead of by reference to a Jury, and thereupon the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts shall apply as in the case of an arbitration under those Acts,"
  —brought up, and read first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be now read a second time."—(Mr. E. Stanliope.)
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I hope, Mr. Courtney, we may regard this clause as likely to be thoroughly effective in practice. I say that because I believe the question of the defences of the Forth has been retarded by the impossibility or difficulty of acquiring lands for the purpose.
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: I can only hope that the principle of the clause will be effective.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  Bill reported as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

WESTERN AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.—(No. 256.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.): I have to move that this clause be postponed until the other clauses have been dealt with. I think I shall be able to show that the other clauses all hang together on this clause. It is unfortunate that we cannot discuss the Bill as a whole, because it is a measure which appears to me to involve large political considerations.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can hardly enter into a general discussion on a Motion to postpone a clause.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: This is the clause which gives responsible Government to Western Australia. As long ago as about the year 1850 an Act was passed which enabled the colony to reform its own Constitution, subject to the condition that such reform would require Her Majesty's assent, after a Bill on the subject had been laid before Parliament. This clause removes that disability, and enables Western Australia to reform its Constitution without coming to Parliament at all. It seems to me that the clause involves an enormous Constitutional question, namely, whether we are to hand over a large part of this enormous continent to a mere handful of people—something less than the population of a third rate English town. I have, of course, great sympathy with the principle of self-government, and if it were the sole object of the Bill to confer a popular form of Government upon the people I should not oppose the clause, but if it turns out, as I think it will, that this proposal is not to establish a popular Government, but an oligarchical Government, which the people of Western Australia do not want, I think the House would do well to pause before passing this part of the Bill. What this Bill proposes to do is to hand over to the colonists complete, absolute, and uncontrolled power over this enormous territory, the main part of which is unoccupied and unexplored.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that his

  117
  Amendment is merely to postpone the clause, and he must confine himself to that Amendment.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg pardon I was just about to approach that subject. When this Bill was in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthenshire moved the postponement of this clause, for the same reasons as actuate myself. We have been told distinctly and positively that the colonists will not have a responsible Government unless they get complete control over the whole of Western Australia, a demand which, I think, ought not to be satisfied. The form of the Constitution to be given to Western Australia was not thrashed out before the Committee. We were told that the question was practically settled by the Second Reading, and that that was not a matter for the Committee. I agree with my hon. Friend below me, who has taken great interest in this question, that if we are to give up this territory and to confer on the colonists the enormous powers they ask for, they ought to be given to a popular Government, and not to a narrow oligarchy. The Select Committee which considered this subject sat for 10 days, during nine of which they took the evidence of official witnesses in support of the Bill, and on the 10th they heard the evidence of another witness on one specific objection. As other witnesses were not then forthcoming, the Committee did not think it desirable to take any more witnesses, and they refused to hear the evidence of one competent individual whom I tendered as a witness.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not see how this line of argument can be made relevant to an Amendment to postpone Clause 1.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Very well, Sir, I will pass from that. My reason for moving the postponement of the clause is that the Committee did not hear both sides of the question. I protested against the matter being hurried over because there were delegates in this country whose object was to get this Bill passed as soon as possible. Only one day was given to the consideration of the Report, which was gone through as though the House was dealing with a Provisional Order Bill. I think the House will probably give very careful consideration to the
  118
  matter before it passes this Clause. The origin of this demand for responsible Government was this—Western Australia is a somewhat old colony—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has given notice of a Motion to postpone Clause 1. I do not see how his present line of argument bears on that Motion.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Then I will postpone my observations on that point until we come to the Clause to which they will be more relevant. Why I ask the House to postpone the Clause is, because delegates have come from Australia who say they do not want the provision unless they get control over this land, and the question of that control, is dealt with in Clause 3.
  Amendment proposed, "That Clause 1 be postponed."—(Sir G. Campbell.)
  MR. J. MORLEY (Newcastle-upon-Tyne): It is very disagreeable to me to differ from my hon. Friend, but as we were both Members of the same Committee, I may be allowed to say a word for two on the observations that have fallen from him. So far as I know, the Members of the Committee entered upon their inquiry without any unfair prepossession or bias, although they might have had their leanings. But the hon. Member brought to the work a tremendous bias.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Certainly.
  MR. J. MORLEY: The hon. Member-has just made a Second Reading speech, but what the Committee had to do was to accept the Bill as having been read a second time. The hon. Member says we were too rapid. Well, we listened with the greatest patience to the evidence that was tendered, and to many questions which did not seem to all of us to be-very relevant; and so far from being very rapid we were exceedingly deliberate. He says that certain evidence was refused. He refers, I believe, to the-case of a certain Mr. Simpson.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: And Chief Justice Onslow.
  MR. J. MORLEY: The only evidence the hon. Gentleman offered to produce was that of Mr. Simpson, who could not be found when wanted; but Mr. Simpson called upon me, and the result of a long conversation was to show that the evidence of Mr. Simpson would have

  119
  gone against the contentions of my hon. Friend. I asked Mr. Simpson, "Are you in favour of reserving these lauds to the Home Government?" And his answer was, "Certainly not; you must leave the control of all the lands to the Western Australians." If my hon. Friend doubts my recollection I can show him the memorandum I made of the conversation. On the point that we only took one day to consider the Report, I would remind the Committee that we listened to all the arguments that were adduced for the clauses, and gave all the weight we reasonably could to the arguments my hon. Friend produced and reiterated, and I do not believe that if we had spent a week over the Report we should have been in the least likely to come to the conclusion offered by the hon. Member. If this House is to be relieved from the immense burden of work that presses upon it, it must confide matters of this kind to well chosen Committees. I believe that all sides of the House are agreed as to the Report of the Committee in the case of this Bill, and I ask, what will it avail to refer a measure of this kind to a well chosen and assiduous Committee if, after the House has assented to the principle of the Bill by reading it a second time, all the details are to be threshed out again on the floor of the House? Unless there are some more cogent reasons than have been adduced, the Committee will be embarking on a most mischievous course if they now lend themselves to a re-discussion of all that has been settled by the Second Reading, and authorised by the Committee.
  THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,): I think I can add very little to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman. I should be contravening your ruling, Sir, if I were to answer all the arguments of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy. It will be remembered that when the principle of the Bill was affirmed on the Second Reading, it was determined by the House to refer it to a Select Committee for the purpose of disposing of the very details now raised. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy has repeated an argument that the Committee to whom the Bill was referred had not an opportunity of hearing evidence on the other side.
  120
  The fact, however, is, that no such evidence was tendered, the only witness who came forward being a witness adverse to the hon. Member himself. He mentions Chief Justice Onslow, but that name was never mentioned.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I mentioned it to the Chairman.
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: He may have mentioned his name, but he did not produce him as a witness, or say that he intended to do so. All the evidence he produced was in the form of a letter from a gentleman in Albany, who desired some fanciful division of South Western Australia, and the formation of a district which he would call "Albania." As to the argument that in the Committee itself the question was raised of postponing Clause 1, the hon. Member omitted to state that on a Division three Members, including himself, voted for that proposal, and 11 against it. Therefore, this Committee may reasonably assume that the question has been thoroughly threshed out in the Select Committee. The Government cannot agree to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman. The Committee devoted a great deal of time and careful attention to the consideration of the Bill, and to postpone Clause 1 now would be to re-open the whole question, which was decided by the House on the Second Reading.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (Leith, &c.): I sincerely trust that the hon. Member will withdraw the Motion. If he has any suspicion of Members who sat on the Committee having been biased, at any rate I cannot be accused of any bias against the hon. Member for Kirkcaldyon this question. If I had been on the Committee I should have endeavoured to get what evidence I could in support of the view I held, and still hold, against the principle of the Bill; and if that evidence was not forthcoming on the Committee, it was the fault of those holding the opinion of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy. We have had a most careful inquiry, and I think that besides the Report presented to the House, there are other considerations, which I cannot enter into, which make it enormously important that a settlement should be arrived at on the question without further delay. I have never altered my opinion that the principle on which the Government, are

  121
  acting is a wrong principle. I cannot give my reasons for that. If I had an alternative proposal to offer I should oppose the Bill, but I have no alternate proposal to that which is contained in the provisions of the Bill; and seeing that that is so, and that if we can do nothing else we have at least an opportunity of cementing the alliance between Australia and the Mother Country, I trust that, the Bill passing rapidly through, we shall at last finish this much-agitated matter.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON (St. Pancras, N.): It is difficult for independent Members to exercise any influence upon the Bill at this stage on account of the understanding that seems to have been arrived at by the two Front Benches that the Bill shall pass. There has been no opportunity for a full Second Reading Debate, especially as regards the larger and more Imperial aspects of the subject. I think the Committee should not have confined itself merely to reviewing the evidence of witnesses tendered on the part of Western Australian Colonists, but should have taken means to get full evidence bearing upon the whole question of the policy on which the Bill is based. It was in that sense that the Bill was referred to the Committee.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is wandering from the Question before us, which is the postponement of Clause 1.
  *MR. BOLTON: It is proposed to postpone this clause, with the view of considering a later Amendment of the hon. Member which will raise the question of the reservation of a largo portion of the lands of this colony to be controlled by the Imperial Government, or by the Associated Colonies of Australia. It is difficult to discuss the question raised by the hon. Member without reference to the circumstances under which the Second Reading of the Bill was passed. It would appear, however, that the two Front Benches are adopting a Parliamentary manœuvre for the purpose of forcing the Bill through, and I warn them that in so doing they are not acting in accordance with the desires of the people of this country. I gladly support the proposal of my hon. Friend.
  MR. W. REDMOND (Fermanagh, N.): I must say that when
  122
  an hon. Member who has not distinguished himself in connection with Australian affairs comes forward and accuses Members who have been assiduous in their devotion to the interests of the colony of being party to a Parliamentary manœuvre, he cannot have a great regard for true Imperial interests. As to witnesses being brought against the Bill, none came, and for a very good reason—because in Western Australia there is no opposition to the Bill. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy said that the delegates in favour of the Bill were sent over hero at the public expense; but we can rest assured that if there had been any genuine feeling against the measure its opponents in the Colony would have found the money somewhere to bring them over to give expression to their opposition. Although I did not have an opportunity of attending the meetings of the Committee I obtained evidence from delegates from Western Australia, and I am in a position to say that there is a unanimous feeling in favour of the Bill in the Colony.
  MR. W. A. M'ARTHUR (Cornwall, Mid., St. Austell): I think the House will hesitate before it accepts the views of a Metropolitan Member and a Scotch Representative in preference to the unanimous opinions of the people of the Colony interested. Every Australian Government, without exception, not only supports the Bill, but has instructed its Agents here to press it forward in order that its passing into law may not be delayed. In face of facts like these it is simply trifling with the time of Parliament and wasting opportunities which might usefully be utilised otherwise to thresh out for the twentieth time matters which have been definitely settled by the House, and about which the people of Australia are in absolute unanimity. I trust the hon. Member will not think it necessary to obstruct the Bill any further.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I may be allowed to say a word of explanation. I cannot enter into the question which has been raised by the last speaker. I maintain that it is not a question as to whether the Australian people are united on this subject, but whether the people of this country wish to part with that territory. I think that my right

  123
  hon. Friend (Mr. J. Morley) is mistaken in regard to the evidence of Mr. Simpson, who is the friend and associate of the Member for the Albany Division of Western Australia. Mr. Simpson is strongly in favour of retaining a large part of the temperate southern territory, and of not giving in a hasty way responsible Government to Western Australia. I will not, however, press the matter further now; it is, perhaps, better that we should reserve what we have to say until we reach Clause 2.
  DR. CLARK: I am opposed to the policy advocated by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, but I could not conscientiously support a Bill which contains a number of pernicious principles. I cannot support a Bill which lays down a land qualification which, I believe, will play into the hands of the squatting minority.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy has withdrawn his Amendment. The hon. Gentleman is anticipating a Debate which may arise later on.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.): I would not intrude myself upon the attention of the Committee if I had not been requested to bring the point dealing with my Amendment before the Committee by certain persons in Western Australia with whom I am connected. I say at once I am heartily in sympathy with the general principle of the Bill, but I do not think there is that unanimous support in favour of the Bill in the form in which it is laid before the House, either in Western Australia or in Australia generally, which is claimed for it. Everyone in Western Australia wants responsible government, and the land to be in the hands of the people; but the delegates who have brought forward this question and those who have framed this Bill, are, in my opinion, wishing to obtain the control of the land for a section of the community, whereas those for whom I speak wish to get the control of the land for the whole of the community. What I have to propose is to add at the end of the clause—
  "Provided that such Order in Council shall not be made until the said Scheduled Bill has been amended in the following particulars (that
  124
  is to say) by the abolition of the property qualification for a Member to be elected to the Legislative Assembly, and by omitting 'and' in line 24 of Sub-section (3) of Section 39, and inserting 'or' instead thereof."
  The practical effect of the latter part of the Amendment would be to substitute for the £10 householder and lodger franchise proposed by the Bill manhood suffrage. What the Bill proposes is that there should be a property qualification both for the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly, and until six years have expired, and until the population has increased to 60,000, the Upper House has to be a nominee House. Hon. Members who know anything about Australia know that in the other Australian colonies the qualification for the Lower House is that a man should be on the electoral roll; that manhood suffrage is the basis of the franchise; and that in most colonies a six months' residence only is required. We may be told we have no right to deal with this question. It is perfectly within our power to withhold our assent to the Scheduled Bill, and I think we would be amply justified in doing so if we can show that the people of Western Australia are not in favour of the details of the Bill. My point is that we ought to postpone this matter till a Bill is framed which really represents the wishes of the great majority of the Western Australian people, and I can call no better evidence of the substantial ground on which I am asking the Committee to come to this decision than that of the late Governor, Sir F. N. Broome, who, before the Select Committee, said—
  "If the question of the property qualification were to be put to the whole people of Western Australia, they would reject the property qualification by five or six to one."
  I think that we ought to do everything we can to get a loyal support in Australia, and this we can do by following the instincts and wishes of the people. I must complain of the action of the Colonial Office in not taking the opportunity which was open to them two years ago, when the first draft Bill was sent over to them to deal with this question. Instead of adopting the advice of Sir F. N. Broome, that the Legislative Council should be made an Elective Council, the Colonial Office insisted that the Upper House should be a nominee House. The Colonial Office lost a favourable opportunity of winning the approval and

  125
  consolidating the good will of the masses of Australia. I shall be told that we ought to go by local opinion [Mr. J. MORLEY: "Hear, hear."] My right hon. Friend cheers that. I will give some local opinion. I will give the opinion of Mr. Hensman, the leader of the popular Party in Western Australia, a man whose integrity and sound judgment, I am sure the Colonial Secretary will be ready to admit. His point is that the property qualification is not fair in Western Australia, for the simple reason that there are many suitable men who have not the means to serve with this qualification. He says:—
  "There has been great difficulty in this poor community, where every one almost works for his living, in getting 17 men who have the property, and are willing to give up two or three months a year to the work."
  That is as to the existing Council. Turning to the provisions of this Bill, he says:—
  "The Bill proposes two Chambers—the Council with 15 members, and the Assembly with 30 members. They cannot get 45 men with the qualification who will be content to give up one third of the year to do this duty. The property qualification is absurd here.…The great objection is that it will prevent a number of honest men, who may be in all other respects suitable, from giving their services to the public.…The intention of this clause is to keep the management of affairs in the hands of the clique who now rule the roost. In no other colony is there any property qualification for the Lower House. It will be a different Constitution from the other self-governing colonies of Australia, and this at a time when federation is being insisted on."
  The opinion of Australians has been referred to. Well, Sir Samuel Griffiths has said that the property qualification of this Bill is not only an anomaly but an absurdity, and in one of his despatches Sir F. N. Broome drew attention to the fact of the great difficulty of obtaining a sufficient number of qualified men to serve on these Legislative Bodies. He drew attention to it in words which have special bearing on the character of this Bill. He said, for instance, in 1884 that there were not enough men in the colony with sufficient leisure and means to serve in the way required. Mr. Parker, one of the delegates who gave evidence before the Select Committee, drew attention to the fact that when the question of the property qualification for the Lower
  126
  House was before the Legislative Assembly, a great majority of the elected representatives of Western Australia voted for the abolition of the property qualification in this Bill, and that the property qualification in the Scheduled Bill was only retained by means of the votes of the nominee members. Allusion was made, in the evidence, to an election which took place two years ago when this Bill was under discussion in the town of Perth, which contains one-fourth of the whole population of the colony, in which election the candidate who stood on the platform of manhood suffrage and the abolition of the property qualification was returned by an enormous majority. Therefore, I think I am justified in saying that public opinion, as expressed by the evidence of Sir F. N. Broome, by the votes of the elected representatives of Western Australia, and by a test election that has taken place on this question, is clearly in favour of the contention I have laid before the Committee. What adequate reason, then, does there exist for our giving the Australians this narrow and stunted Constitution against the will of the people? We have two reasons given in the evidence laid before the Committee. One reason is given, and given freely enough, by Sir F. N. Broome, in a despatch dated April 14th, 1888, and covering a Petition against responsible Government sent to Her Majesty's Government, and signed by 80 or 90 of the leading capitalists and monied men in Western Australia. He said—
  "This Petition is signed by a body of most respectable and sterling settlers, every one of whom has a substantial stake in the colony. I do not think this Petition can over-ride the expressed wish of the Colonial Legislature, but it may be taken in evidence of the wisdom of not casting the new Constitution in too Radical a mould. The Conservative minority in this community is strong, not only in property qualification, but also in sober judgment and sound sense; and the views of those who compose it should weigh, at least, so far as to lead Her Majesty's Government to guard the new Constitution very carefully against mob rule."
  The franchise, then, is to be restricted with the deliberate intention of protecting the monied classes from what Sir F. N. Broome calls mob rule. I shall be much surprised if I find any of those who sit around me and claim to be Radicals, agree with that interpretation of the

  127
  duties of the State towards the people of Western Australia. I state that this is one reason for this Bill which was given in the evidence before the Committee. There is another and absolutely contradictory version given, and that is given by Mr. Parker, a delegate who came forward on behalf of the Legislature of Western Australia. He poses as the representative of the Popular Party, but I have considerable doubt as to his legitimate claim to figure in that part. He gave as a reason for wanting this Bill that, as soon as the people get this Constitution, they will be able to sweep away the property qualification and the restricted franchise, and they will take steps to break up the land monopoly in Western Australia, by passing a Land Tax and Succession Duty similar to that passed in other Australian Colonies. I doubt this view, and believe the view put forward by Sir P. N. Broome. The whole history of the origin of this Bill shows that it has been promoted and shaped by a narrow clique of moneyed men who do rule, and have ruled, and wish to continue to rule, the destinies of Western Australia. It is a Bill to enable the moneyed men of Western Australia to retain the control of the land question in their own hands. It is the Bill of those who wish to take the lion's share of land grants, such as the blocks of 12,000 acres par mile along the Albany and Beverly Railway—of those who wish to pick out the "eyes" of the land. It is said that the nominees of the Lower House will, of course, acquiesce in the resolution of that House in favour of abolishing the property qualification. Is that at all likely, when we have the evidence before us that when this Bill was before them the nominee element deliberately kept the property qualification in defiance of the wishes of the elected Representatives? I move this Amendment not only because I have been requested to do so by Western Australians, with whom I have been in constant correspondence, but because I feel that the lowering of the franchise and the abolition of the property qualification are essentially necessary in the interest of those English, Scotch, Welsh, and Irish immigrants who carry their strong hands and stout hearts to Western Australia, but who by this squatter oligarchy will be excluded for years to come
  128
  from taking any share in the rule of the colony either as electors or as Members of the Lower House. As a Radical, I claim that they, as British subjects, have a right on going to Western Australia—which is British land, thank God, and I hope will remain so—to share in settling questions which affect their own interests and the interests of the colony to which they have attached themselves. I say that, in the interests of those men whom we expect to build up a great future for our colonies, and with the object of knitting more closely the feelings of confidence and friendship which exists between the colonies and the Mother Country, we ought, at least, to give the colonists fair play.
  Amendment proposed,
  At end of clause, to add the words "Provided that such Order in Council shall not be made until the said Scheduled Bill has been amended in the following particulars (that is to say) by the abolition of the property qualification for a member to be elected to the legislative assembly, and by omitting 'and' in Section 39, Subsection (3), page 13, line 24, and inserting'or,'"—(Mr. Channing,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  BARON H. DE WORMS: I doubt whether the hon. Member has considered the Bill before the House, because he seems to have come to the conclusion that the proposed qualifications are inserted in that Bill. The hon. Member seems to have overlooked the fact that the Western Australians themselves introduced this property qualification in the scheduled Bill; and though the hon. Member claims to speak on behalf of the Western Australians, the Committee will be inclined to accept the clauses of the scheduled Bill in preference to the authority of the hon. Member himself.
  *MR. CHANNING: Does the right hon. Gentleman contest the fact that the elected portion of the Legislature voted for the abolition of the property qualification?
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: Yes; but the property qualification remains as the result of the deliberations of the Legislative Assembly. They ought to be the best judges of what they themselves desire. By the 32nd section of the 13th and 14th Vict. Western Australia and other colonies have the right exclusively con-

  129
  ferred upon them of making what conditions they like as to the qualifications for electors and elected Members. That is so, and I need not waste time upon arguing it. The hon. Member admits the Act confers that right, and in accordance with that Act they have inserted the provisions which are contained in the scheduled Bill. When the hon. Member says these provisions do not express the views of the people of Western Australia he must be aware that Mr. Hensman, to whom he has alluded, is a member of the Western Australian Legislature, and had an opportunity of expressing the views the hon. Member depresses by proxy. His views were not the views of the majority, and Mr. Parker, to whom the hon. Member has alluded, is the leader of the Liberal opposition in the Western Australia Legislative Assembly, and therefore, I think, as qualified and as able to express an opinion as the hon. Member. The Legislature in Western Australia Responsible Government will have the power of altering these qualifications when and if they think fit by subsequent statutory enactments of their own. If the hon. Member will look at Sections 5 and 73 of the schedule of the Bill he will see they will have that power, and they may some day use it. We have not the right or the power, under 13 and 14 Vict., cap. 50 and 59, to deprive Western Australia of the right conferred on the colony by Statute. [Cries of "No!"] If hon. Members will take the trouble to read they will see that I am correct. [Cries of "Read!"] It is so; the reference is open to any hon. Member—
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Order in Council, 30 days before this House.
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: That power, I say, was given to Western Australia by the 13 & 14 Vict., caps. 50 and 59; and if hon. Gentlemen introduce this Amendment to the clause, it will simply have the effect of defeating the Bill. The Western Australians would not accept it; and they would be perfectly justified by Statute in refusing it.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: I am not altogether opposing the Bill on the ground on which my hon. Friend (Mr. Channing) opposes it. I think it is very likely people in Western Australia, having at the present time responsibilities of Government,
  130
  know the sort of qualifications that will probably suit the infant colony under its new conditions. They may think it de sirable for a time that the suffrage should be restricted and that there should be qualifications for Members sitting in their Parliament; but if the arrangements are found to work unsatisfactorily, I have no doubt there will be sufficient force in public opinion to enlarge the suffrage and improve the arrangements connected with their Elective Assembly. I am, therefore, not prepared to oppose the Bill on that ground. But this Bill proposes to vest in this new Representative Assembly the full control of a vast territory—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment moved is directed to an amendment of the schedule, and the hon. Member must confine himself to that.
  *MR. BOLTON: Do I understand that I cannot refer to the original Motion in connection with the Amendment moved upon it? I am discussing the Amendment, but this does not deprive me of the opportunity of referring to the original proposition.
  THE CHAIRMAN: There is no original Motion. An Amendment is moved to the clause. After that is disposed of, the question of the clause itself comes forward.
  DR. CLARK: I had hoped for some information from the Under Secretary, but we only get an argument based on the statement that the people of Western Australia desire to have a property qualification, and will only have the Bill on this condition. As a matter of fact, the people of WesternAustralia—the bulk of them—the big majority of their elected Members, have voted against this property qualification, and the property qualification is only there because of the influence of Members nominated by a Government who have jobbed away millions of acres of land. These, with a small number of elected Members, have introduced the property qualification to keep power in the hands of a ring. The whole influence of the Government is based upon inaccurate information, and instead of retorting upon the hon. Member that he should seek information, the right hon. Gentleman should give us evidence from the colony. He will find the difference is as between 10 and 7. I am very anxious that Responsible Government should be conferred upon Western Australia, knowing how

  131
  this House treats all these colonial questions with contempt, and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like to be troubled with these things which affect a bigger country than this, and likely to be greater than this has ever been; but I cannot support a Bill that will throw power for some time into the hands of men who have misused that power and have jobbed away millions of acres of land. I would support a Bill for a Constitution similar to the Democratic Constitution of all other Australian Colonies; but against the wish of the majority of the elected Representatives you are thrusting this Constitution upon the colony. The majority of the elected Members were against it, and only the nominated element carried it. It is for the purpose of retaining power in the hands of those who have misused it. Why should a man of £5 or £8 rental be disqualified, and the man who pays £10 be qualified? It is an absurdity in modern legislation. Why the exclusion of ministers of religion? We may have such men here, and often in the colonies the leading men are ministers of religion, who devote themselves to the support of religion. But you are going to disqualify this class, and why? I can understand a Clerk in Holy Orders being disqualified because he is a State-paid official, and by disfrocking he can qualify himself. Then, again, if a man absents himself from illness, or any other cause, for two months, he loses his qualification at once. We are not prepared to delegate to a Committee of 21 gentlemen full power of determining all these points. I am not prepared to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle in maintaining this property qualification. I am strongly in favour of a Bill to confer Constitutional Government on Western Australia; but it should be a Bill giving power to the people such as is enjoyed in Great Britain, irrespective of whether a man holds a large amount of freehold property or not.
  MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN (Denbighshire, E): My hon. Friend is really trying to induce the Government to impose conditions against the wishes expressed by the people of Western Australia. The people there have sattled the matter in Constitutional manner under the Act 13 & 14 Vict., and have passed their Bill. Wise or
  132
  not in our judgment the Bill may be, but I am of opinion that the people of Western Australia are far more competent to form a judgment upon the points that have been raised than we who live so many thousand miles away from that country. We do not understand what the franchise means out there. Mr. Carter, who opposed the property qualification, said he had not the slightest doubt that as soon as the colony had this Constitution, the property qualification we aid be completely swept away, and the franchise would be reduced to something approaching manhood suffrage. Witness after witness in giving evidence asserted that this franchise which the Western Australian Legislature have now established is exactly the same as, or perhaps even less restricted than, the franchise originally established in the other Australian Colonies, where it has been widened step by step. It would be a monstrous thing to hang up this Bill indefinitely, and so to deprive the people of Western Australia of the advantages which they desire to acquire, in order that hon. Members in this House may give effect to their own particular views.
  MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.): I have no wish to deprive the people of Western Australia of the Bill, and have no reluctance to entrust them with this power. I have carefully read the evidence given, and I have listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire, and certainly I think that if it is in the power of this House to make the Amendment, it is necessary to make the Bill what it ought to be. I observe the right hon. Gentleman did not read us the particular part of the schedule of the Act 13 & 14 Vict, which deals with this particular point. The right hon. Gentleman said it will be in the power of the Legislature of Western Australia to abolish this property qualification in the future, and, as I understand, it is quite within the power of Western Australia to accept the Bill with this Amendment. I conceive it to be the duty of every friend of Manhood Suffrage to support this Amendment. I approached the Bill with an open mind. I was told it was absolutely necessary to pass the Bill this Session in order that Western Australia might have the benefit of it, and I assented to that. But now I find that it is not absolutely necessary

  133
  to pass the Bill rapidly if we are not satisfied with it. If it is possible to add the Amendment, and Western Australia can still accept the Bill. I hope the Amendment will be pressed.
  MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.): In the interest of Members who are disposed to facilitate the progress of the Bill, but take exception to details, I would ask will it be in order to propose any Amendments to the text of the scheduled Bill?
  THE CHAIRMAN: No, I think not. It is a mere historical statement of what passed in the Legislature of Western Australia.
  MR. DEASY (Mayo, W.): There seems to be a general impression that, if the Amendment were accepted, the result would be to hang up the Bill for another year. That is not so. An Order in Council may determine whether this Amendment can be accepted or not, and it will be for the Privy Council to advise Her Majesty whether the Bill should be sanctioned or not. This is an important point that influences me in my opinion whether I ought to support this Amendment. If I thought that it would have the effect of putting an end to legislation of this kind for a year I would not vote for it. I would not be a party to preventing the people of Western Australia from managing their own affairs according to their own wishes, but I feel it is essential for good government that the colony should have a really popular franchise such as obtains in the other colonies. If you restrict the franchise in the manner proposed you may rest assured that continual agitation and dissatisfaction will result, while a great deal of the property of the colony will become alienated in the interests of the few who will govern under this Bill. Whatever may be said to the contrary, half a dozen families guide the destinies of Western Australia. In a short time, no doubt, as public opinion advances, these men will have to change their views, and democratic principles will prevail; but, in the meantime, they will simply be feathering their own nests, and when the people come to look after their own affairs they will find very little to administer, inasmuch as everything worth having will have been appropriated. It will be a regretful thing if this Bill is sanctioned by Parliament in this form. I trust that the
  134
  Amendment will be introduced, and I am sure it will in no way retard the progress of the measure. It has been urged again and again that the restrictive franchise will have no practical effect on the Government of the colony. If that is so, why retain these objectionable provisions; why not abolish these restrictions, and put the Government of the colony, practically speaking, into the hands of the people? I know that words are attributed to Sir Napier Broome to the effect that to lower the franchise will be to give mob rule, but I cannot reconcile this with the known condition of things. My own opinion is, that unless a Constitution similar in every respect to those which obtain in other colonies is given to Western Australia, the question will not be regarded as satisfactorily settled. You will have it reopened from time to time. I do not wish to prolong debate. I am anxious to see this Bill pass in an amended form; and I trust Radical Members, who have always been on the side of household suffrage and manhood suffrage, will not permit such a clause to go through without such an Amendment as this moved by my hon. Friend.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST, Chatham): The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down appears to be under a misapprehension as to the powers of the House. Both he and the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment talk as if the House were imposing a restricted suffrage upon the people of Western Australia. It is doing nothing of the kind. The power of the British Parliament is simply either to accept or reject the Constitution the colony itself has passed. The colony, under the powers conferred on it by the Act 13 and 14 Vict., c. 59, has passed a Constitution, and the House can accept or reject it, but cannot amend it. The effect of accepting the Amendment would be to refuse a Constitution to Western Australia until the House has compelled the colony to amend the Act. I cannot conceive any more offensive and tyrannical way of imposing a Constitution on a colony. It is because I am strongly in favour of Local Self-Government and of Home Rule for the colonies, and of leaving them to say that a particular Constitution will suit them, that I strongly object to this Amendment. The

  135
  Committee may be perfectly at ease as to the progress of free institutions in Western Australia. The Legislature which can amend the present Constitution Act can also amend the Act to which the House is invited to give its assent, and the Committee may very well trust the Legislature to be established by this Constitution to make such reforms as may be necessary for the interests of the colony. I therefore think the Committee should give its consent to the only Constitution it is possible for the British Parliament to give.
  MR. CREMER: The speech we have just heard has tilled me with amazement. As I understand the right hon. Gentleman, this House has no power to amend the Bill. Then why, may I be permitted to ask, were we allowed to enact the farce of passing the Bill through Committee if we have no power to amend the Bill submitted for our endorsement?
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: The scheduled Bill cannot be altered; the Bill itself may be.
  *MR. CREMER: We are asked to pass a Bill which creates a property qualification and confers a restricted franchise, a qualification fortunately long since abolished in this country, and a franchise restriction that has disappeared from among us. We are invited, as it were, to take a step backward by this Bill, and this I decline to do. We are asked to enact for our kindred in Western Australia restrictions against which we long ago successfully struggled, and to this, I, as a Democrat, offer my sturdy opposition. I hope that a large minority, at least, of the Members of this House will register a solemn protest against the proposals of the Government as contained in this Bill.
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: They are not the proposals of the Government.
  *MR. CREMER: If the Bill is not being promoted by the Government, why are we asked to consider it? The Government might as well closure the Debate and tell us we must simply be dumb on the matter. If the Government are not promoting the Bill who are? Some of the proposals it contains are most extraordinary. The franchise proposed is one which the House of Commons would reject with indignation for itself, and why should it be imposed on the colony.
  136
  The result of the Bill will be that a certain body of persons will get all the power into their own hands. I shall, as a Democrat, offer the most strenuous opposition to this measure, and I am amazed that the leaders of the Liberal Party should give their assent to such reactionary proposals.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I will not go into the argument whether or not my hon. Friend is a good Democrat, but I may say I feel sure that my hon. Friend has only taken up his present position through a thorough misunderstanding. The scheduled Bill is no more the work of the Government than it is the work of the hon. Member himself. The Western Australian Legislature have full power to pass that schedule, containing the restrictions to which I no less than the hon. Member object, without coming to the House at all [Sir G. CAMPBELL: No], if they had not been obliged to get the assent of the British Parliament to matters dealing with land. The 25th and 26th Victoria enacts that the Legislative Council of Western Australia may alter the provisions for the election of Members to the Council and for the qualifications of electors and of the elected Members.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Go on.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Certainly I will go on. The enactment continues—
  "Provided always that every Bill passed by the Council shall be reserved for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure thereon, and shall he laid before Parliament 30 days at least before Her Majesty's assent be given to it."
  If the House wishes to takeaway the power to which that Statute refers, the House will have to repeal that Statute. My hon. Friend forgets that Mr. Brandreth, the legal representative of the Colonial Office, gave evidence before the Committee, to the effect that for the Imperial Parliament to interfere in any way in the qualifications of the electors of Western Australia the Statute which has been quoted this evening would have to be altered. This is a Bill which has been passed by the representative Government of Western Australia, whose definite decision in the matter I contend it is not for the House to override. If the Committee adopt the Amendment, the effect will be that they will have to send the Bill back to Western Australia to revise. The Colony certainly do not want that, for the immense weight of opinion

  137
  in Western Australia is strongly in favour of the whole Bill being passed, and passed without delay. Moreover, that is not merely the feeling of Western Australia; but, as an hon. Member has stated, the Agents-General representing the whole of Australia back up the demand, and I believe I am right in stating that they have waited on the First Lord of the Treasury and pressed him to fix a date for the passing of the Bill. That is an important fact, and would it be wise, because certain views are entertained in reference to property qualification for voting—views which I myself share—to oppose the wishes of the colonists in this matter, and to force those views upon Western Australia? Would it be wise to thus place ourselves in a false position, not only with reference to Western Australia, but the whole of the Australian Colonies? I believe not, and it is because I think it undesirable that this House should burden itself with interference in all that is done in distant Dependencies, because I believe that this work can be better done by those on the spot, who are best acquainted with the circumstances—in short, for the same reason that I am in favour of Home Rule in Ireland, that I support the Bill, and entreat the Committee not to delay passing it.
  Mr. JOHNSTONrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Debate resumed.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has read to the Committee the words of the enactment. The important proviso is contained in the fact that these Bills must be reserved for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure thereon, and that the Bill must be laid before both Houses of Parliament for the space of 30 days before Her Majesty's pleasure is signified. That means that if this House in that period requisitions Her Majesty not to approve the Bill, it will not be approved. This is a matter of Constitutional right, and I believe the passing of this Bill would only tend in years to come to increase the difficulties of popular Government.
  MR. DEASY: The right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition
  138
  Bench has interpreted my ideas. I would not for a single moment stand up and oppose this Bill on account of the prevailing opinion in Australia, although I do believe the Colony are making a great mistake in having this restricted franchise. I am in favour of Home Rule for Western Australia, and I believe the people there will not be content with anything but Home Rule. We may, and do, object to some of the details of this Bill, but I shall support it on broad principles.
  DR. CLARK: I shall support the Amendment, because for 12 years there will be a Council not elected by the people, but appointed by the Governor, under the Bill as it stands, and then there will be a Council elected by a small section, namely, the wealthy class only. I desire, as strongly as anyone can, that the people of Western Australia shall have self-government; but by this Bill you are not giving it to them, you are definitely withholding it from them for a long period.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I share the objection which has been expressed to the proposed property qualification, but the question is, whether the Bill before us with that qualification is not better for the people of Western Australia than a continuance of the present system. I have no hesitation in saying that the great majority of the people of the colony would infinitely prefer this Bill, and I cannot understand how anyone in favour of self-government can oppose or retard the measure. The sending back of the Bill to Western Australia to get re-considered the clause as to property qualification would postpone for a year certainly, and perhaps indefinitely, this extension of the liberties of the people, whereas if the Bill is carried I have no doubt that the colony will soon realise the wisdom of having an extended franchise.
  MR. CHANNING: I maintain that the hon. Member is wrong in contending that the Bill will be indefinitely postponed if this Amendment is passed. Her Majesty's Government will have the power to make an Order in Council at any time, and the House will not have to consider the Bill again.
  MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.): This Debate has manifestly raised a question of the utmost gravity, and one which ought not

  139
  to be hastily determined. I am one of a considerable number of Members who entertain doubts as to the Constitutional position of this question. We have been told that if the Bill is amended it must be referred back to the colony. We ought to know more on this, and I beg, therefore, to move the adjournment of the Debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I hope that the House will not consent to the Motion. This question has been very carefully considered by a Committee in which the House has full confidence. If the Bill is not passed, Western Australia will have to remain under her present Constitution, which is open to many objections. All that the House can do is to accept and sanction that which the colony propose, or refuse it; we cannot change it.
  MR. FLYNN: I am very much in the same position as my hon. Friend. We do not understand the Constitutional bearing of this Bill. I take it that the vast majority of us are in favour of the Bill, and it would delay it but a day or two if we agreed to this Motion and had time to consider—
  Viscount GRIMSTONrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 245 Noes 108.—(Div. List, No. 161.);
  Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  (12.15.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 94; Noes 255.—(Div. List, No.162.)
  Whereupon Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH rose in his place, and claimed "That the Original Question be now put."
  Original Question put accordingly,
  "That the words' Provided that such Order in Council shall not be made until the said Scheduled Bill has been amended in the following particulars (that is to say) by the abolition of the property qualification for a Member to be elected to the legislative assembly, and by omitting 'and' in section 39, sub-section (3),
  140
  page 13, line 24, and inserting 'or, "be there added."
  (12.30.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 81; Noes 255.—(Div. List, No. 163.)
  It being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (PROCEDURE) BILL.—(No. 245.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 5.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to move that you, Sir, report Progress.
  MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.): I would appeal to the hon. Member to allow this Bill to pass. It is approved of by the legal profession, and by many legal Members on either side of the House.
  DR. TANNER: There are some Amendments to be made, and I wish the measure to be proceeded with at a quiet pace.
  MR. SEXTON: I will make a personal appeal to my hon. Friend and remind him that this Bill is a non-contentious one, and has the support of hon. Members on all sides of the House.
  DR. TANNER: I must persist.
  Committee report Progress; to sit Again To-morrow.

  METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT AND BUILDING ACTS AMENDMENT (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.—(No. 356.)
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT ACT (1862) AMENDMENT (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.—(No. 357.)
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.
  House adjourned at five minutes before One o'clock.

ANGLESEY ASSIZES AND QUARTER SESSIONS BILL.—(No. 125.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  *LORD KENSINGTON: My Lords, I rise to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, which has passed the other House of Parliament, and to explain in a very few sentences the object of the Bill. It is to repeal a very old Act of Edward VI. In consequence of the Act, great doubt seems to have arisen in the Island of Anglesey as to whether Quarter Sessions for that county can be held in any other place except the Town of Beaumaris. Beaumaris may have been a very convenient place at the time the Act was passed, in the reign of Edward VI., but as I am informed it is very inconvenient now. It is quite in a corner of the Island
  2
  there is no railway in connection with it, and all parties interested are unanimously in favour of getting the power which other places have of choosing the place where the Quarter Sessions shall be held. As I am informed, the Grand Jury have on more than one occasion made presentments to that effect; the County Council have unanimously passed a Resolution in favour of the repeal of the Act; and at Quarter Sessions, though there was a division of opinion, the majority was three to one—the figures being 12 to 4 in favour of the repeal of the Act. The promoters of the Bill, and those in that county who support it, ask for nothing more than to be put in the same position as other counties, namely, that they should be able to choose the place which is most convenient for holding those Courts. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill. As there is no detail in it at all, if your Lordships have no objection, I will move that it be referred to a Committee of the whole House.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

INFECTIOUS DISEASE (PREVENTION) BILL.—(No. 117.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I beg to ask your Lordships to give your assent to the Second Reading of this Bill, which bears the distinction of having passed the other House of Parliament. It is practically a compilation of various clauses of other local Acts, such as the Newport, Grimsby, and Stockton Acts of 1889, and it has farther been approved by the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations of the other House. Also there are certain provisions of this Bill which have been recommended by the Special Report of the Committee of 1887 to be compiled in one general measure. Following the precedent of the Infectious Diseases Notification Act of 1889, this Bill is proposed to be compulsory only for London, and in other parts of the country to be adopted at the will of the Urban or Rural Sanitary Authorities of districts. It may be considered a sequel or corollary of the Infectious Diseases Notification Act of last year, and it may be argued, from the way in which that Act has been received throughout the country, that there is every likelihood, if this measure he passed into law, that it will be equally well received. With regard to that Act, out of 25,000,000 people who could possibly be affected by it, it has already been put into operation in districts having a population of over 20,000,000 people. With reference to the particular clauses of the Bill, Clause 3 states that in London it will be compulsory, and in other places it will be adopted voluntarily by the Local Authorities. Clause 5 states that the Local Authority may disinfect houses at their own cost, and at the same time they are bound to give compensation for any damage they may do in disinfecting those houses. Clause 6 provides that anybody who fails to give notice to an incoming tenant of rooms where there has been a case of infectious disease within six weeks previously is liable to a fine, or else he must have a certificate from the medical authority that the room or rooms have been
  4
  properly disinfected. Clauses 7 to 10 have to do with the removal and burial of the bodies of those who die of infectious diseases, and Clause 11 allows the Local Authority to make payments to any hospital where it is necessary to keep a person who is suffering from any infectious disease. Clause 13 is a provision of a somewhat similar nature, by which any Local Authority which has compelled any person or persons to quit a house owing to there having been infectious disease there, is to find them accommodation elsewhere. Clause 19 gives power to the Local Authorities when they have to put in force the provisions of this Bill if it becomes law to act upon any part or parts or the whole of the Act. I may say in support of the Bill that it has been with the Amendments approved in the other House, and it is generally approved of by the Central and Associated Chambers of Commerce, by those connected with the Board of Trade, and also that a great number of Petitions have been received both from individuals and from Corporate Bodies, and have been sent in to both Houses. I think I have said enough in support of the Bill, and I hope your Lordships will now give your favourable consideration to it, and allow it to be read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Lamington.)
  *THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (The Earl of JERSEY): My Lords, after the clear statement of the object of this Bill which my noble Friend has just given it is not necessary for me to detain your Lordships. I need only say that the Bill has the concurrence of the Local Government Board, and though there are some small Amendments which will have to be inserted in it, they are not Amendments dealing with the principle of the Bill. This Bill enables all Local Authorities without special Acts to obtain the advantage of several clauses which are now generally inserted in local Acts of Parliament. As my noble Friend has mentioned, the Notification of Diseases Act is now in force among 20,000,000 of the people of this country.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, before the Second Reading of the Bill is assented to, I beg leave to give

  5
  notice, on behalf of the Secretary for Scotland, to move in Committee an Amendment that this Bill should not apply to Scotland, there being already a law in operation there parallel with this measure, and having regard to its provisions, this Bill would cause confusion.
  On Question agreed to; Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee for General Bills.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 122.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clause 3.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I have a very simple Amendment to move on Clause 3, the object of which is this: The Town Council of Glasgow are in another of their capacities Police Commissioners, and in n third capacity they are Gas Commissioners. Early in the year, under the belief that they were the Local Authority, in their capacity as Gas Commissioners, they made application for a Provisional Order, and proper notice was also given by them as the Local Authority in their capacity as Police Commissioners. The opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown has been given to the effect that they are the local Authority, not as Police Commissioners, but as Town Council. If this Bill passed without amendment it would be necessary for a month's notice to be given before a Resolution can be passed giving sanction to themselves in another capacity to apply for a Provisional Order. As in their capacity as Police Commissioners they have already gone through the proper formalities and passed the Resolution, the object of this clause is to dispense with the necessity for the lapse of another month before the notice could be renewed. No undue advantage can be taken of it, because it only applies where all the formalities have been gone through.
  Amendment moved,
  In Clause 3, page 2, line 24, after the word "Act" to insert the words "And in the case of any application made before the passing of this Act by anybody constituted the Local Authority by or under this Act, the Board of
  6
  Trade may entertain such application although the same has not been made in pursuance of a Resolution passed at a special meeting of the said Authority according to the provisions of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882.—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  LORD HERSCHELL: I should like to call the noble Lord's attention to one point, that is, where the Gas Commissioners are the Local Authority, this Bill would give them an absolute power to veto electric lighting in their district.
  *LORO BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The noble Lord will find a provision in the Schedule to this Bill in regard to that. I am not able to say off-hand to which particular burghs it will apply, but if there are any cases in which the Town Council as Police Commissioners or Gas Commissioners are made the Local Authority then as the Local Authority they would have, at any rate for a time, the power to veto electric-lighting enterprise. But there is a power vested in the Board of Trade as regards Scottish burghs the same as that regarding England, that if upon due cause shown it is seen that acting as the Local Authority they are making opposition in order to place undue difficulties in the way of electric lighting enterprise, the Board of Trade may give an order to dispense with the consent of the Local Authority.
  LORD HERSCHELL: But is it stated that that will apply to the cases which are covered by this Bill? Because I cannot help feeling that there is very great risk in leaving the determination of the question as to introducing electric lighting in the hands of the Gas Commissioners. One can well understand that where a Local Body are making very likely a considerable profit by the sale of gas they may be very much disposed to be slow themselves in taking up electric lighting, and not only that, but to stand very much in the way of those who are disposed to take it up, and so deprive those who have an interest in its being adopted, that is to say, the community, of the advantage of the electric lighting. I am afraid the progress of electric lighting in the past has been not a little impeded by the fact that the Local Authorities themselves have been purveyors of gas to the public. It seems to me a little strange to give the power of dealing in that way with

  7
  electric lighting expressly to Gas Commissioners.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: No doubt there is some force in the criticism which has been made by the noble Lord, but there are two answers to it. In the first place I may state that I am informed, and I believe it to be the case, that the provision which I mentioned when I last spoke does apply, I think, in this case; but I will make absolutely certain of it before the Bill leaves the House. The second answer is that the criticism does not apply so much to Scotland as to England, because it is not so much the custom in Scotland for profit to be made out of either gas or water undertakings as I am informed it is in England. The price of gas is cut much more closely so to speak in Scotland, and if there is any surplus profit it is returned, I understand more promptly, in the shape of a reduction in price to the consumers than is the case in some municipalities South of the Tweed. There is, therefore, not the same temptations to the actions feared by the noble Lord.
  On Question agreed to.
  Report of Amendment to be received to-morrow.

CHOLERA IN SPAIN.

  QUESTIONS—OBSERVATION'S.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH,in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is the intention to impose quarantine on vessels arriving at ports in the United Kingdom from Valencia or other Spanish ports believed to be infected with cholera, said: My Lords, I presume the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the threat or presence, for I think I may almost use that term, of what appears to be cholera in some of the Southern ports of Spain, and I desire to ask whether they have taken the precaution to impose quarantine upon all vessels coming from any of those infected places, notably from Valencia. I should be very sorry to raise anything like a note of alarm upon the subject, but from the reports we have received, the matter seems to me to demand very serious consideration. The reports of this morning show that out of 190 cases 130 deaths have occurred, and, although the Spanish Authorities seem still to doubt whether
  8
  the disease be cholera or not, I think that fact is sufficient to require that every precaution should be taken by those who are responsible against the introduction of any disease into this country. I find that for some time past quarantine has been imposed at Gibraltar upon vessels coming not only from Valencia, where the disease is so prevalent, but also from some other Spanish ports. There has recently been a report that similar cases have actually appeared in France, and I think in tome of the Northern ports of Spain. Those being the facts as stated, I think I am justified in asking Her Majesty's Government whether they will take into their serious consideration the necessity of imposing quarantine upon all vessels coming from any of those infected ports, and whether any steps are about to be taken in the matter.
  *THE EAEL OF JERSEY: I beg to inform my noble Friend, in reply to his question, that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to impose quarantine regulations upon vessels coming from Valencia and other Spanish ports or ports in the South of Europe. It is intended to pursue the system which was in force in 1885, when there was a serious outbreak of cholera in Southern Europe, and a large number of deaths, I think about 60,000, occurred in the course of two months, July and August. At that time regulations were passed by the Local Government Board by which, whenever a vessel arrived from any foreign countries, the Customs House Officer was enabled, before the vessel touched land, to make inquiries as to the state of health of the people on board, and if there was any suspicion of cholera or other infectious disease, to detain the vessel. Then the medical officer of the port would go on board and inspect the vessel and take all the necessary steps for the isolation or disinfection of the sick and other persons, as might be required. I need hardly assure the noble Lord that the Local Government Board will watch carefully the continuance of this outbreak, and I hope that it will not be so serious as is anticipated.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: May I ask whether the Government have any information on the subject from those ports?
  *THE EARL OF JERSEY: I cannot answer the question without notice, but I will inquire.

  COURT OF CHANCERY OF LANCASTER BILL.—(No. 93.)
  House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order); Bill reported without further Amendment; and to he read 3a To-morrow.
  TRUSTEES APPOINTMENT BILL.—(No. 84.)
  House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order); Bill reported without further Amendment; and to be read 3a on Monday next.
  FOREIGN JURISDICTION (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.—(No. 109.)
  House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order); Bill reported without further Amendment; and to be road 3a To-morrow.
  FACTORS (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL. (No. 108.)
  House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a To-morrow.

  ARMY—PURCHASE AND REGISTRATION OF HORSES.
  LORD WEDLOCK: My Lords, in rising to call attention to the present system of buying and registering horses for the Army; and to move for a Return of the number of horses purchased for the Army during the last two years, showing the number obtained from the dealers and of those from the breeders direct, and the places where they were bought; and also the number of horses registered for the Army, I desire to say that I have placed this notice on the Paper, feeling that the subject is of great importance to the country, and one upon which information is much needed. It will be within your Lordships' recollection that three years ago my noble Friend, Lord Ribblesdale, whom I am glad to see in his place, brought forward the subject of horse-breeding in this country in a Debate in which he argued the question most thoroughly and with great ability, and the result of the discussion and of the stir which
  10
  it created throughout the country generally, was that a Commission was appointed to encourage the breeding of horses in the country, a sum of money being placed at their disposal. That money was spent with the greatest benefit to the country, small though the sum was. When the Government took that step, in my humble judgment they should have gone further, and should have extended the system of buying horses for the Army, so as to place themselves in direct communication with the breeders, and thus give further encouragement to the breeding of horses. About the same time the Army Re mount Committee was appointed, and I would ask my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for War whether he has any information with regard to that Re-mount Committee. I should like to know how many Members there are on that Committee, what is its cost, what are their duties, and in what way they carry those duties out. As far as I can ascertain, this Committee sits in London, and is in no way in direct contact with the farmers of the country who are breeding horses. It is impossible for them to carry out such a system as I believe ought to be carried out in this country, a system by which they should be in close and immediate contact with those breeders who produce the supply. I venture to suggest that if my noble Friend could point out some way in which this Committee could be broken up from its centre in London, whence it conducts its operations, and could be scattered about through the country, such a system would be productive of a great deal of good. I believe this question has occupied the attention of those who have an interest in the subject for many years past. I find in the evidence given before the Royal Commission which sat upon this subject in 1873, Mr. East, whose intimate knowledge of it is well known to your Lordships, summarised his views in a manner which certainly commends itself to me, and I should like to call your Lordships' attention to them. The first of the three recommendations he put forward, was to the effect that we must obtain our troopers direct from the breeders, and he said that in that way we should acquire a knowledge of the resources of the country. Then he went on to say that the present

  11
  prices are sufficient if only the breeder were dealt with directly, for the Consequence of that would be that the price would be raised to the breeder; that it is only owing to our present defective system of buying that we cannot properly find what is required and that we should be still worse off in a time of emergency. This evidence, applicable as it was in 1873, is, I think, quite applicable to the present state of affairs. My Lords, I do not believe, as far as I can ascertain, that this Committee is in proper touch or communication, as it should be, with all breeders of horses in this country, and I should, therefore, like to see some such system established as this which was shadowed out by Mr. East as long ago as 1873. In the Debate which took place on the occasion I mentioned three years ago, the illustrious Duke who is Commander-in-Chief of the British Army made some remarks upon the subject; and I will call your Lordships' attention to one particular sentence which he then made use of—
  "It is most essential, therefore, for all purposes that the breed of horses should be encouraged, for English horses are the best in the world, and more encouragement to the farmer would be beneficial, not only from a military point of view, but for the general public."
  If I may venture to say so, I fully endorse all that the illustrious Duke said upon that occasion. I believe that if these gentlemen could be placed in direct communication with the breeders a great advantage would follow. I do not believe that the Committee is in proper communication with the breeders of horses, and I believe this more direct communication with the breeders would entail no increased expense on the country; on the contrary, I maintain that the extra sum which is now lost to the breeder, and which passes into the pocket of the middleman, would be saved, or better applied. I should like my noble Friend to tell me, if he can, what the advantage of the present system is over the old one. Under the old system the colonels of the regiments obtained re-mounts through dealers at prices varying from £40 for the light cavalry, and £42 for the heavy cavalry, to £45 for the artillery. In fact, the same system is carried out in this country of purchasing all horses through dealers. We have precisely the same system of purchase going on, plus
  12
  the expense of this Re-mount Committee. That is a system which I believe to be very unsatisfactory. I desire to exclude from the scope of my observations upon that point the system which is carried out in Ireland. Colonel Drew, who is the only official connected with these matters in Ireland, I believe, does all he possibly can to place himself in direct communication with the breeders of horses there, but it is, of course, impossible for him to see them all, and, therefore, ho has, to some extent, to trust to dealers. I should like to see the whole of the country parcelled out into districts, and official buyers appointed in those districts, who should be in every day communication with those persons who breed horses. The third point upon which I desire to ask my noble Friend for information is with regard to registration. Here I must confess I am in a difficulty, because I can get very little information upon the subject. The only things which I have been able to find out are the Returns which were published by my noble Friend Lord Harris, who has now gone to Bombay. In talking of the registration of horses, he mentioned the fact that 14,000 horses were registered at an expense to the country of 10s. for each animal; but, if my information is correct, by far the greater number of those horses so registered for the purpose of being taken up by the Government in case of a sudden emergency are in the hands of Tramway or Omnibus Companies. I am told that those companies simply receive the payment of 10s. a year, which would amount to say £50 in the case of a company owning 100 horses, but no price is specified to be paid by the Government for the animals, on taking them over, should occasion arise, and I can quite understand that if any sudden call had to be made upon those companies they would naturally say that, as giving up their horses would cause an entire suspension and disorganisation of their business, the Government must expect to have to pay a very large sum indeed for them. I do not know whether that is correct, but, perhaps, my noble Friend will enlighten me on the subject. Tour Lordships, of course, can quite understand that big companies would not like to place themselves in that position, and I believe that if such a system as I have

  13
  mentioned Could be carried out it is quite possible for the various officials who would be acting in districts all over the country to register in their districts horses whose owners would be ready to give them up to the Government, at any time they might be required, for the sum of £40. In that case, at all events, we should not have to pay such very large sums as at present we possibly might have to pay to Tramway and Omnibus Companies, and the whole matter would be carried out much more economically, and upon a much more correct basis, because not only would the Government be able to place their hands upon those horses, at the price I have mentioned, £40, but they would be able, through their officials, to satisfy themselves of the condition of horse breeding in this country, so that they would know upon what supply they could depend throughout the Country. There is this great point to be considered: service-horses are not like wheat or potatoes that you can get them when ever yon want them. It takes a long time to get a horse for service In this country, and, therefore, the country ought to look upon this matter in rather a different light to that in which ordinary subjects of commerce are regarded in reference to demand and supply. I hope, therefore, that in noble Friend will be able to satisfy your Lordship's that some such system will be considered, and, if possible, set on foot, as I have' ventured to point out. I am perfectly certain that if something of the kind is done it will impart greater energy to breeders throughout the country, and the subject of the purchase of service-horses will be placed 'in a much sounder position than I believe it to be at present.
  THE EARL OF DUNDONALD: My Lords, I think the noble Lord who has introduced this subject has dealt With it rather from the breeders' and farmers point of view. But there is also another point of view from which it' may be regarded, that is the taxpayers', and I think the Government are perfectly justified in placing the hard-headed practical middleman between the purse of the nation and the pockets of the farmers. Many of your Lordships, no doubt, have tried to purchase horses on your own account, and I Suppose are
  14
  quite as Capable of judging of the merits of a horse as the officials who would probably be appointed under the system which has been sketched out by the noble Lord; but I have no doubt you found that you were obliged to give up trying yourselves to purchase, and that you would do far better to employ a respectable dealer. If one can judge of the working of a scheme by its results, all I can say is that here the result has been most satisfactory. The horses now supplied to the cavalry are, at any rate, as good as they have ever been, and I believe if your Lordships could s e some of the re-mounts which have been recently supplied to the cavalry regiments, you would say you had never seen a better looking lot of young horses. There is only one other point which I should like to touch upon in this connection, and that is, with regard to the purchase of foreign horses. I should like to ask the noble Earl to state, when he replies, whether the Government are purchasing re-mounts from abroad. If this is the case, I certainly think the Government are not acting properly in doing so, because that would not be carrying out the statement made by the Secretary of State for War, about a year ago in another place, that warlike material would be purchased as far as possible in this country, and I consider that the supply of re-mounts comes within the scope of that assurance. With regard to what has been said about the registration of horses, I hope we shall have a satisfactory reply from the noble Lord, but there is one circumstance which has come under my notice, and which, I think, your Lordships might like to hear. I have been told of cases' in which masters of hounds have supported the system of registration in a most patriotic manner. One master of hounds, on being applied to, at Once registered 20 horses, though there was not a single horse in his stable which had cost less than £150. Thus, in time of war, he would be obliged to give up to the Government, for£60 or £70, horses which had cost £150. I think, my Lords, this is true patriotism, and if the noble Lord grants this Return, I hope it may be found possible to state the names of those Masters of Hounds who have come forward so generously.
  *LORD BELPER: My Lords, before the noble Lord rises to answer the question be has been asked I should also like to ask him whether he can state the number of horses which are bought out of the Yeomanry. A year or two ago it was the custom to send down officers to look at the horses of the Yeomanry, and, of course, there should have been a good opportunity there for the Government to buy; but, I am sorry to say, that in the district with which I am principally concerned no horses were ever sold to the Government. Whether or not they offered a sufficient price, in some instances, I am not aware, but I know there are other conditions made which prevented horses otherwise perfectly fit being bought for Government purposes I believe it was an invariable rule that no docked horse would be bought by the Government. Therefore, the question I should like to ask is, whether the Government now buy docked horses from dealers, though in former times their officials used always to refuse to buy such horses when shown them in Yeomanry Regiments. If any arrangement could be made for the purpose it would be a considerable assistance to Yeomen if they could find a sale for a horse at an ordinary price for Government purposes. As a matter of fact, that has not been the case, and they have been rather handicapped in that regard in comparison with the dealers, because I understand that horses which have been offered for sale in May or June in the Yeomanry Regiments would be refused. They would not be bought for the Government, because they were not old enough, and yet they would be bought from dealers three or four months later at whatever the price might be which was given for them. The Yeomanry have received no benefit from the system which has been initiated, and, as a matter of fact, the Yeomanry horses are not even now looked at. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he can inform your Lordships how many horses have been bought out of the Yeomanry within the past few years.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Earl BROWNLOW): My Lords, I think it is necessary for me to say that it is of great value to the War Department to have free expressions of opinion from those who, like the noble Lord
  16
  opposite who has asked for this Return, live in the horse-breeding counties of England, and who take a great interest in the breeding of horses, and the purpose for which horses are bred. Upon this important matter of re-mounts, the opinions which the noble Lords who have spoken have expressed, cannot but have considerable weight. The Return asked for by the noble Lord really, I may say, embraces two Returns, one on the subject of re-mounts, the other on the subject of the registration of horses. Those, of course, are very different subjects. With regard to the question of buying re-mounts for the cavalry, your Lordships will understand the horses required are young horses which can be trained for cavalry purposes. On the other hand, the horses required for registration are seasoned horses, already broken, which can be made available for cavalry purposes after a short training, or for purposes of draught immediately. Then as regards the machinery now at work, there is one purchaser who conducts the purchasing and registration in Ireland, and two purchasers who perform the same duties in Great Britain. All the horses purchased for remounts are seen by the Inspector-General, and are passed by him before they are sent out. I must remind the noble Lords who have spoken that it is impossible for the Department to give an unlimited power of purchasing horses; there are only a certain number required, and horses can only be bought as vacancies occur in the regiments. The total number allowed in the Estimates cannot be exceeded. To give the noble Lord the number of horses purchased in the last two financial years. I may state that in 1888 there were 1,427 horses purchased, and in 1889 the number was 1,734. The number purchased from breeders was small as compared with the number purchased from dealers; but in the latter year it considerably exceeded the number purchased from breeders in the former year, and also bore a larger proportion to the number purchased from dealers in former years. That gives us hope that the Committee of Remounts is not so entirely out of touch with the breeders, and that as the number of horses purchased from them in those two years has increased it may go on increasing, until the num-

  17
  ber so purchased is much greater than it is now. I will now pass to the question of the experiment that was tried for utilising the Yeomanry for the purpose of purchasing re-mounts. The numbers are these: in 1887 four regiments were visited and only four horses were bought; in 1888 the whole of the 39 regiments of Yeomanry were visited and only seven horses were taken; in 1889 there were 22 regiments which specially notified that horses were offered for sale, but of those only four were passed into the Service. My Lords, I am afraid when we take those figures and consider them they are not very encouraging. I am bound to tell the House that this experiment, though we have always tried to encourage the Yeomanry to come forward and sell their horses, has been an entire failure; and I am much afraid that it is no use to go on with it. I would further state that the price of this very small number of horses so bought was very large owing to the expenses of travelling in sending down officers to see them. Then my noble Friend said he would like to see permanent purchasers established in districts throughout different parts of England for the purpose of purchasing horses. That, no doubt, would be exceedingly expensive. But what has been done is this. I mention it, as I do not think it is generally known. The Adjutants and Permanent Staff of the Yeomanry have instructions to inform the Remount Department what horses there are in their districts which are fit for re-mounts. Then farmers Laving horses to sell have only to inform the Yeomanry Adjutant; that is reported; the owners are communicated with and purchasing officers are sent down to see them and to buy those found to be suitable for cavalry purposes. The process is very simple; a farmer having a horse to sell in any part of the country has only to go to the nearest Yeomanry Adjutant and fill up a form stating the size, age, colour and other matters with regard to the horse, and if the animal appears likely to be suitable for cavalry purposes an officer will be sent down. Then if the horse is found suitable he will be purchased. I do not think this arrangement is generally known among farmers; perhaps if it was they would take more
  18
  advantage of it. Now, I will pass on to the other question of registration. As I said before, horses which are registered are required to be of a different stamp to those which are purchased for re-mounts. We want for registration horses fit for immediate use. A horse to be registered must be broken and ready to go to work at once. My noble Friend has asked whether those horses are not chiefly registered by Omnibus Companies and Tram Companies. A good many are registered by companies of that kind, and a good many are registered by Railway Companies, and people such as carriers and others who employ large numbers of horses register them. The result has been that there are 14,000 horses now registered. Of those 14,000, 3,241 are fit for riding, and 10,759 are fit for draught purposes. There is no reason to suppose that a great many more horses could not be put on the register if they were required I may now state that my noble Friend is quite in error in supposing that no price is fixed for those horses if they are wanted. The price is carefully fixed from year to year, and the animals themselves are most carefully inspected by the Re-mount Department. My Lords, I cannot leave this subject without saying that I feel that the thanks of the War Department and of the country are due to those Masters of Hounds who have come forward in a most liberal and patriotic spirit and recognised the fact that the greatest, perhaps, of our national sports ought, in time of emergency, to give assistance in supplying the wants of the National Army, and have placed in the most patriotic manner their hunt horses at the disposal of the Government by registration. The noble Lord did not move for a Return, I think, when he was speaking, but I suppose he wishes for the return he has stated on the Notice Paper. I can only say that Her Majesty's Government will be happy to lay the Return he wishes for upon the Table of the House, and there I hope he will find all the information he requires.
  THE EARL OF CORK: My Lords, I am very glad my noble Friend has called the attention of the House to this question, and I must say I hardly think the reply which has been given by the Under Secretary for War is satisfactory. The noble Lord has evidently tried to

  19
  shift the blame from the shoulders of the Yeomanry to the shoulders of the Inspecting Officers sent down to examine by Her Majesty's Government. In the County of Somerset I know that when the Inspecting Officer came down to inspect horses a good many were shown him; but immediately one-was brought out with a docked tail it was sent back into the ranks, and the owner was told that it was quite useless. Any noble Lord in the House who has had experience of the Yeomanry must be convinced of the vast improvement that has taken place in the quality of their mounts; and I must say that in the Counties of Somerset and Wilts a good mount, such as would be ridden by a farmer there, would certainly realise a far larger sum than £40, which is all, I believe, that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to give. There are some very good horses in the hands of the farmers. Therefore, I think the Government can hardly expect to get good re-mounts from Yeomanry regiments, unless they are prepared to give a better price. I will go further, and say also that the present method of buying horses for the Army is not a very great improvement on the old system. You still have to go to the dealers. The dealer is a man who knows what a horse is, and he can deal with a farmer in a way which no gentleman can possibly adopt. He understands the art of dealing with the farmers. We must also remember that in purchasing for the Army the dealer has this advantage. He has to buy not only one horse but two or three from the same owner, and therefore he very often gets a horse at a moderate price by taking three or four other horses at the same time. I know that is frequently the case, and in Ireland particularly, where dealers who have purchased several horses together often get a horse fit for the Army at a better price on that account. Therefore, I think the present system' is merely a variation of the old method. Instead of the Colonel of a regiment dealing direct with a dealer, one officer in Ireland called a purchaser, and two in England, are really doing the very same thing as was done in former days. Then in regard to the registration of horses. I know a good many people who think it is a capital thing to get 10s. a year for registering a horse. It
  20
  is a nice sum for a job master or omni bus proprietor who is owner of, say, a 100 horses, to get—in that case there would be £50 a year for him. But no price is fixed for them, so that when the1 time comes when those horses will fee required what a very awkward position the Government will find themselves in!
  *EARL BROWNLOW: I beg the noble Lord's pardon, the price is fixed most carefully.
  THE EARL OF CORK: I apologise to my noble Friend as that is the case. I quite agree with what the noble Lord has said as to the gallant way in which Masters Of Hounds have behaved in the matter; but I think at the same time it is a very expensive way of doing this, that is to say paying 10s. a year. Where there is a price given those very horses will be brought forward and placed at the Government service, though no such price may have been put upon them on former occasions. I am very glad this question has' been brought forward, and I am sure the whole country takes great interest in it. The breeding of horses has vastly improved in this country, and a far better horse is now being produced than was the case some years ago. I only hope that even more encouragement will be given in future to the breeding of horses than has been given in recent years, and I think that the sum placed in the hands of the Commissioners for this purpose ought to be increased. I think more good could be done if a larger sum were given.
  A noble LORD: My Lords, I can fully bear out that the horses in Yeomanry regiments were always sent back if the horses were docked. I think it would be beneficial if we could have some assurance from the noble Lord as to whether, in future, docked horses would be taken for Cavalry re-mounts. I think such an intimation would be satisfactory to all of us.
  *EARL BROWNLOW: I cannot give a reply to that off-hand; but I shall be happy to make inquiries and answer it, if possible, in due time.
  *LORD HARLECH: As an old Cavalry officer I must express my opinion that it is a very great mistake ever to buy a horse for the Cavalry with a docked tail. Our cavalry may be required to go at any time to a hot climate, and a horse

  21
  with a docked tail is only half a horse. The want of a tail causes more suffering to the animals than can be conceived, from the inability to brush away flies, and it ought, I think, to be thoroughly well-known throughout the country that the cavalry do not admit docked tails. If that were known there would be no efforts made to pass horses of that kind into the cavalry. Owners of such horses would know what was before them, and if they aspired to breed horses for the cavalry they would not dock them.
  LORD WENLOCK: My Lords, with the indulgence of the House I will now move formally for the Return mentioned in the notice. With regard to the remarks made by my noble Friend, it seems there is great difficulty placed in the way of farmers selling their horses to Government. I can quite understand that the expense of officers going down from London would be very great if the War Office are going to get the Yeomanry Adjutants, say in Northumberland, to inform the Department in London of the number of horses in their district. With regard to docked horses, I may state that Colonel Drew told me that in Ireland at the horse fairs he had found himself in competition with the Dutch Government, who had no hesitation in buying docked horses, while he lost a good many valuable horses simply because they were docked. And not only did the Dutch Government buy docked horses, but they at once docked all the undocked horses they bought. I do not know that my noble Friend, Lord Harlech, is right with regard to our cavalry horses being sent to hot climates. When the cavalry are sent to Egypt they have Egyptian horses, and in India they have Indian horses assigned to them. Therefore, I think it is possible to buy docked horses and show better results than we are getting now. I will not detain your Lordships with any further remarks in regard to our present system of buying and registering horses for the Army.
  Moved,
  "That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty for a Return of the number of horses purchased for the Army during the last two years, showing the number obtained from the dealers, and of those from the breeders direct, and the places where they were bought; and also the number of horses registered for the Army."—(The Lord Wenlock.)
  On Question, agreed to.

POSTAL CARDS.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD LAMINGTON: I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can say whether the Departmental Committee of the Post Office have yet arrived at any decision as to the use of adhesive halfpenny stamps for the transmission of cards through the post?
  THE EARL OF JERSEY: I am sorry I cannot give the noble Lord such a definite answer to his question as-he would wish. There have been other questions besides that referred to in the Notice Paper which were laid before the Departmental Committee. The recommendations made by that Committee are before the Postmaster General, who has not yet come to a decision upon them. Therefore, I can only inform the noble Lord that the question is still under consideration.

  INTESTATES ESTATES BILL.—(No 148.) ORCHARDS RATING EXEMPTION BILL—(No. 149.)
  Brought from the Commons; Read 1a and to be printed.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.