Sitting of 1 June 1891

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL—(by Order.)
  SECOND READING.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. LLEWELLYN: I beg to move, "That the Bill be read a second time upon this day three months." I take this step with regret, as the Bill at first sight appears to relate to local matters; but beyond, there is a question of very great importance involved which has already attracted the attention of several Governments, and which one Government after another has failed to legislate upon. With regard to the local aspect of the question, I should like to point out that the Bill seeks to restrict the area within which the Bristol pilots may exercise their calling. Hitherto the limit has been Lundy Island, a distance of 75 miles. The new limit is to be the Holms, 14 miles. At the present time there are about 35 fully licensed Bristol pilots. These men have passed through their apprenticeship and are fully qualified; but in addition there are apprentices, and others who having passed through their apprenticeship are waiting their turn to become pilots. The Bill proposes a reduction of about two-thirds of the area in which these pilots may ply their calling. This will be simply disastrous
  1358
  to them, as it will bring them into active competition with the pilots of the port of Cardiff who number 160 men. The Bristol pilots complain loudly of this Bill, and their complaints are not unreasonable. They say that they are perfectly willing to agree to the restricted area imposed by the Bill, provided the necessity is shown, but they also say that no Local Authority has a right to destroy the living of a class of men without showing them some consideration and granting them compensation for their loss. It will be urged that the high pilotage dues have affected the trade of Bristol. I will not say that any decline in the trade is due to mismanagement on the part of the authorities of Bristol, but I do say that they have no right to make these pilots who have been serving the post for many years suffer for their own want of management. The pilots have always performed their share of the contract they entered into with the Corporation of Bristol. They have to be at sea in all weathers, to run every risk, and at all times of the year keep the sea, as far down as Lundy. They have performed their share of the duties well, and I have never heard a single complaint against them. On the contrary, I have heard great praise given them for the manner in which they perform their duties. Many of the ships coming to Bristol carry their own pilots in the masters or mates on board, and in fine weather these ships take no notice of the Bristol pilot, but are piloted into port by their own masters and mates. In foul weather, however, they act differently; these masters and mates will not take the responsibility of piloting their ships up the difficult channel, and they then take a pilot on board. They will not run the risk of getting their vessels aground, so they put the risk on the certificated pilot. Any hon. Member who has been at Bristol and has stood on the Clifton Suspension Bridge at low water, will have some idea of the difficulty of piloting ships up that river. Yet the Bristol pilots are constantly doing that and, considering the difficulty of their task, they make very few mistakes. Sometimes they spend weeks cruising about outside without earning anything. Last week one man returned home after three weeks knocking about in the Bristol Channel

  1359
  without earning anything at all, while another man was five weeks at sea without earning anything. It is a hard life that these men are called upon to lead, and yet they must do the work. If compulsory pilotage is done away with, not only will ships and cargoes be endangered, but human life as well. When this Bill was first spoken of not one word was said about the reduction of rates; yet, now, not only are the rates to be reduced, but the Bristol men will have to suffer from the competition of the men from Cardiff. It has been put forward in some quarters that under this Bill the rates will be increased. Why should pilots oppose this Bill if the rates are to be increased and their position bettered? It is not the fact that the rates are to be increased, for what right have the Corporation of Bristol to increase them if the trade is decreasing, as alleged? The pilots have not applied even for an increase. In order to show that the rates will not be increased I will quote from the Bill the scale of pilotage rates, showing that on vessels over 1,000 and under 1,100 tons the scale is reduced from £12 15s. to £5 0s. 6d. On vessels over 1,100 and under 1,200 tons there is a redution of £7 7s. 3d., and on vessels over 1,200 and under 1,300 tons the reduction is from£12 15s. to £5 15s., a loss of £7. In fact, all along the line there is a reduction, beginning at vessels of 100 tons, on which the rate is reduced from £3 13s. to £1 3s. 3d. That will show whether the rate is increased or not under the Bill. The House will probably hear something about the scheme of compensation that is promised to the men. There is a sum of £8,000 which has been applied for about 60 years to the superannuation of pilots and to no other purpose. The proposed scheme is to do away with that capital sum, and with it to grant annuities of £30 a year. The men do not want that; they want to go on with their occupation, and they do not want this fund to be exhausted, but to remain in the hands of the Corporation for their benefit as heretofore. I hold in my hand a Petition from the inhabitants of the village of Pill, which the forms of the House do not enable me to present. The petitioners pray the House to reject the Bill, knowing as they do that the passing of the measure will mean absolute ruin to them, for they
  1360
  would be entirely at the mercy of the Corporation of Bristol. This is a little Bill, but behind it there is a great question—a question which more than one Government have shirked or declined to touch, namely, the abolition of compulsory pilotage. If passed, this Provisional Order will have the same effect as a public Act, and it will be followed by Provisional Orders from other places. At this moment Swansea has a Provisional Order to do away with compulsory pilotage awaiting the passing of this. I ask the House if it is now going to do away with a system which Government after Government and Committee after Committee have declined to touch? This matter has been before the Board of Trade, and they have decided entirely upon hearsay evidence. I wish there had been some inquiry made on the spot, for I am satisfied the Inspector would have found that the passing of the measure means ruin to a great number of men who have earned the respect of the Corporation of Bristol by the way in which they have performed their duties, also to the whole village of Pill. I assure the House that the people of Pill are anxiously awaiting its decision, and I hope that decision will not be such that those people will shortly find themselves deprived of the means of livelihood.
  MR. BAZLEY - WHITE: I beg to second the Motion for the rejection of the Bill. What I especially wish to call attention to is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to the compulsory pilotage question; I contend that this is a stab in the dark to the system. During the last 20 years there have been two Select Committees appointed to inquire into the law with regard to compulsory pilotage, and both have reported distinctly in favour of the maintenance of the system. Looking at this fact, I maintain that the question ought to have been dealt with in a larger measure than this Provisional Order Bill, and I deprecate piecemeal and narrow-minded legislation of this sort. I want the right hon. Gentleman either to withdraw the Provisional Order or to introduce into it clauses which would deal with the question of compensation. In 1870 a Bill introduced by the late Mr. Bright and others with regard to compulsory

  1361
  pilotage contained provisions for giving compensation not only to the licensed pilots, but to all who would suffer under the Bill. We have put upon the records of the House a Resolution that the drink traffic shall not be interfered with without compensation. On the liquor traffic there may be a division of feeling; but on this question of water traffic I do not think that there is any difference in this respect. I believe that this Provisional Order is really the outcome of an answer given by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to a deputation of shipowners a few weeks ago. I would ask the Government either to deal with the question in a broad, general, and wide way, accompanied by compensation, or to introduce into this Bill clauses which would provide compensation in the manner to which I have referred. In the Bill of 1870 compensation was to be given out of funds to be provided by Parliament to all who suffered any diminution of income under the Act; and I hope that in this case the Government will reconsider their decision.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): My hon. Friends have drawn a very terrible picture of the probable results of this Provisional Order. The hon. Member for Somersetshire (Mr. Llewellyn) anticipates ruin to some of his constituents, the destruction of the whole pilotage system of the Bristol Channel, losses and wrecks innumerable, and all from the curtailment of the limits of the Bristol Pilotage District, and then he went on—and the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Bazley-White) followed him in the same line,—to say that this is a stab at the system of compulsory pilotage, that it is contrary to the recommendations of the Committee of 1888, and that, in fact, it is the exact reverse of the policy which Parliament has hitherto pursued. I traverse those statements entirely. In the first place, I desire to say that in addressing the House on the Bill I do so not as a Member for Bristol, but as President of the Board of Trade. I have endeavoured to keep out of the question altogether my own connection with Bristol, and to deal fairly by those whom the hon. Member for Somersetshire represents. What has occurred in regard
  1362
  to this matter is this: In the autumn of 1889 the Corporation of Bristol, being at that time the Pilotage Authority, applied in the ordinary way to the Board of Trade for a Provisional Order, curtailing the limits of the compulsory pilotage district of Bristol. I declined at the time to proceed with the Provisional Order, because the question of pilotage generally had been occupying the attention of Parliament, and Parliament had, in the preceding Session, passed an Act, by which pilots and shipowners were entitled to obtain representation on Pilotage Authorities if they so desired. The pilots of Bristol had applied for a Provisional Order giving them that representation, and, therefore, I postponed the consideration of the present Provisional Order until the Pilotage Authority of Bristol had been re-constituted by the admission of the representatives of shipowners and of pilots. The Pilotage Authority was re-constituted last year, and, having been re-constituted, it continued the application for the Provisional Order, which is now before the House. Until 1861 pilotage was compulsory throughout the whole of the Bristol Channel to the east of Lundy Island; but in that year, on the application of Cardiff, Newport, and Gloucester, compulsory pilotage was abolished with respect to those three ports, and at present the only compulsory pilotage in the Bristol Channel exists with regard to the old pilotage district of Bristol and ships going inwards to Swansea. Under such circumstances, what was to be my answer to the application of the Bristol Pilotage Authority? What reason was there for retaining the old and unnecessarily extended limits of the Bristol compulsory pilotage district, when pilotage was absolutely free to the other great ports in the Bristol Channel? The present district extends 80 miles, from Bristol itself to Lundy Island. Anybody who knows the Bristol Channel must admit that in the present state of our system of lighthouses and charts, and in view of the general and increasing substitution of steamers for sailing ships, it is perfectly absurd that the compulsory pilotage district should extend to what is, practically, the open sea. I felt obliged by the action which Parliament took in 1861 to assent to the application of the

  1363
  Corporation of Bristol for this Provisional Order. But in doing so I took care to have regard to the interests of the existing pilots. I called the special attention of the Corporation to the resolution by which they had bound themselves to deal with the subject in a spirit of compensation for existing interests—firstly, by increasing the charges for pilotage within the limits of the diminished district, by pensioning the old pilots—no inconsiderable number out of the 34 — out of a Fund, which never was contributed by pilots at all, but which came from charges on foreign ships, and which was in the possession of the Corporation. And, further, the Corporation had undertaken to provide a future Superannuation Fund by a small contribution made by the pilots themselves and a similar contribution made by shipowners, and by some charge upon masters and mates who, by the possession of pilotage certificates, escaped the employment of pilots on their ships. It would be perfectly possible for those interested, if they were not satisfied with these provisions, to have their case fully represented to the Committee upstairs. Personally, I should be very glad to see inserted in the Provisional Order provisions relating to compensation. As to the assertion that the Bill amounts to a stab at the system of compulsory pilotage, I think I have shown that, with regard to the Bristol Channel, by this Provisional Order we are simply following the action of Parliament in 1861, and also, later, the action of Parliament in regard to the Barry Docks. I entirely disagree from my hon. Friends in the opinion that this Provisional Order is contrary to the recommendation of the Committee of 1888. That Committee reported—
  "They are of opinion, taking all the circumstances into consideration and having regard to the advantages of decentralisation, that the principle of compulsion as it now exists should not be interfered with, leaving to Local Pilotage Authorities full and ample powers to adopt such system and frame such regulations, subject to the sanction of Parliament, as may be most conducive to the interests of; the trade and shipping of the particular port over which their jurisdiction extends,"
  which was precisely what has been done in this instance. The principle of compulsion has been retained. Pilotage will be compulsory within the restricted area.
  MR. LLEWELLYN: May I point out that the taking up or letting off of a pilot at the Holms will be attended with great danger on account of the narrow channel and strong tides.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The pilots themselves admit that the maintenance of a compulsory district extending to Lundy Island is indefensible. I leave my colleagues in the representation of Bristol to state their opinions as to the effect of the existing system on the commerce of Bristol, and I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading, with the understanding that provisions for the compensation of those whose interests will be prejudicially affected may be fairly considered by the Select Committee. I may add that the Government will be glad to assent to the insertion of clauses dealing with the matter.
  SIR J. WESTON: I wish to refer to the disadvantage Bristol trade is under in consequence of the compulsory pilotage, a disadvantage from which other ports in the Bristol Channel, including Cardiff and Newport, are free. Upon the first application of Bristol to be exempt from this condition, the Board of Trade recommended the Corporation to appoint a Committee, consisting of members of the Town Council and representatives of shipowners and pilots, to thoroughly investigate and consider the whole matter. This recommendation was carried out, with the result that bye-laws and a schedule of rates and charges were framed, which were afterwards affirmed by the Corporation. In the course of the proceedings, the chief objection made on behalf of the pilots was that their receipts, under the altered arrangements, would be diminished. The Corporation have since carefully considered the position of the pilots, and are of opinion that their interests have been cared for in the schedule of rates and the proposal for superannuation, to which the President of the Board of Trade has referred. The feeling in favour of the Bill is well-nigh unanimous in the Town Council, and public opinion in Bristol thoroughly realises that the Bill is necessary to the prosperity of the trade of the city, which hitherto has been severely handicapped in competition with other ports, while the pilots will be affected only, if at all,

  1365
  in an inappreciable degree. I give a hearty support to the Bill.
  COLONEL E. S. HILL: I rise to support the Bill now before the House, and in doing so I desire to say, as a shipowner, that I am strongly interested in the maintenance of an efficient pilotage service, for the shipowner's only chance of profit rests in the safe navigation of his vessels. Much has been said touching the inexpediency of abolishing compulsory pilotage. In narrow waters this system must always remain, whereas in some places its expediency is an open question, but this question is not raised by the Bill before the House. It has been asserted that the Bristol Channel is dangerous to navigate. This is not the case, and I believe I am correct in stating that a vessel may shape her course from the Holms to New York without requiring to alter it. Whatever dangers there are, do not commence until the Holms are passed. My hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset has quoted some words of a speech of mine, in which I expressed my opinion that the pilots should be compensated for any change that might be made. I do not recollect the exact words I used, but, doubtless, they were to that effect, and I am prepared to stand by them. The pilots are a most respectable body of men whose interests ought to receive the most careful attention; and if I did not think that this had actually been done, I should not be here to support the Bill. In days not long ago gone by, Bristol was the dominant port in the Channel to which she gave her name, and the entire pilotage system was under her control. The great ports of Cardiff and Newport were unknown, whilst Swansea and Gloucester were comparatively unimportant; but in the year 1861, these ports had undergone a wonderful development, and they came to Parliament and asked to be relieved from the "yoke of Bristol," and to have pilotage systems of their own. This request Parliament granted, and with it gave them non-compulsory pilotage, and that without any compensation to the then existing interests of the pilots. It is not for me to question the wisdom of Parliament in so doing, but I think the House will feel that when non-
  1366
  compulsory pilotage has been granted in the case of nine-tenths of the vessels using the British Channel, to retain the other tenth under a compulsory system would be an anomaly and absurdity. Bristol asks Parliament to do her the justice of relieving her from a condition which, in these days of fierce competition, tend to handicap her trade, and place her in a position of disadvantage. It is therefore proposed to restrict the area of compulsory pilotage to the limits of her own port—that is, to the Holms, and in fixing this limit a desire has been evinced to treat the pilots generously, inasmuch as vessels proceeding to Gloucester may navigate from the Holms to King Road without a pilot. If it had been proposed to retain the present rates within the restricted area, the pilots would distinctly have been injured, and would have had a good case, but the existing rates are to be increased; for instance, in the case of a vessel not exceeding 500 tons, from the Holms to Bristol the rate is increased from £2 6s. to £2 15s. 6d.; under 1,000 tons, from £3 11s. 6d. to £4 13s. 6d.; under 1,500, from £4 to £6 9s. 3d., and under 2,000, from £4 to £8 4s.; and I believe I am correct in stating that these rates are higher per mile than is at present charged for any other portion of the Channel. It is in this increase of rates that the compensation of pilots chiefly exists. As to the general result upon the gross earnings of the pilots, it is quite evident that the pilotage over an area, that has been restricted some 70 odd miles, must require less time to perform, and, consequently, there are fewer pilots. The number of pilots is now 34, but it is believed that 25 will suffice, in which case their gross earnings per man will be much the same as at present. It has been wisely resolved to establish a Superannuation Fund, and 5 per cent. is to be deducted from the earnings of the pilots for this purpose. Of this sum the shipowners contribute 2½ per cent., the rates having been increased accordingly. Something has been said about the western men or sailors employed in the pilot boats. No doubt fewer of them would be required, but these sailors will have no difficulty whatever in finding profitable employment elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Mem-

  1367
  ber for North Somerset has maligned the Bristol Channel in stating that it contained no fish. Doubtless he is unaware that there are no less than 21 steam trawlers now engaged in the fishing industry of the Channel. In addition to the increase of rates, within the restricted area, the present pilots are to have given to them a vested interest in a sum of about £8,000, which was collected by a surcharge upon the pilotage of foreign vessels between the years 1810 and 1837. It is proposed to give a pilot, having attained the age of 65, a pension of £30 a year. There are, I am informed, nine or ten who have already passed that limit, and although I do not say they are not good pilots, it seems to me that when a man has attained that age he may well think about retiring from active service. Sir, although I have the misfortune to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset on this occasion, I still yield to none in my appreciation of the services of pilots, or my desire for their welfare. Some years ago, before I had the honour of a seat in this House, I brought in a Bill at much personal trouble and cost for the purpose of placing pilots upon the Cardiff Pilotage Board. I succeeded, and I am glad to find that the principle is now thoroughly acknowledged. The Bristol pilots, who have hitherto been practically under the control of one man, will now be under a duly recognised Board upon which three of their own Members have seats. It has been urged that if this Bill be sent to a Committee, the pilots are too poor to represent their case. I cannot see the necessity for incurring heavy expense. The pilots can themselves appear before the Committee with a plain, unvarnished tale, and I am quite sure the Corporation of Bristol would be ready to acquiesce in whatever the Committee might consider that justice demanded. In the interests of Bristol, and in the interests of the pilots themselves, I urge the House to read this Bill a second time.
  SIR E. J. REED: When the Debate commenced, I was disposed to support the Motion for the rejection of the Bill; but what the President of the Board of Trade has said has influenced me in favour of the Bill. The interests of a class of men like pilots are not to be
  1368
  lost sight of. When questions of compensation are raised in reference to many trades and classes, there is no body of men whose claims are entitled to more attention than that of the pilots of this country. But the President of the Board of Trade has given what amounts to an undertaking, that in Committee the claims of the pilots to compensation shall be very carefully considered, and with that assurance the hon. Member (Mr. Llewellyn) might I think be content.
  MR. W. ABRAHAM: I do not understand that the right hon. Gentleman has given any such assurance. He has only said he would be glad if the Committee would consider the question of compensation.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Perhaps I may explain that it is not in my power to give any such guarantee. The decision must rest with the Committee. I have expressed the view of the Board of Trade that the question of Compensation should be brought before the Committee, and that the Committee should give due weight to the Petition, and will, no doubt, take evidence and come to a decision which the Board of Trade would gladly carry out.
  MR. W. ABRAHAM(continuing): I intend to vote against the Second Reading, because, before the Committee, these pilots will have all the disadvantage of poor men fighting a rich Corporation like that of Bristol with the resources of public money. It is a case in which the House should take action without leaving the matter to a Committee. It is one of those matters that might well be relegated to the Labour Commission. Each pilot has served seven years' apprenticeship, has bought a boat at a cost of £350, the repairs of which average £50 a year, and he has to pay a man to assist him £1 a week. All these considerations establish a strong case for compensation, and the Superannuation Fund referred to is one to which the men have indirectly contributed.
  Mr. LLEWELLYNrose to speak, but Mr. SPEAKER reminded him he had no right of reply.
  (4.30.) The House divided:—Ayes 165; Noes 119.—(Div. List, No. 255.)

QUESTIONS.

  TRANSFER OF LICENCE.
  MR. W. BOWEN ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that a transfer of a licence was granted by the Liverpool Magistrates on the 30th of April last to an applicant who stated that his only interest in the business was the receipt of weekly wages; and whether the possession of such an interest is a sufficient compliance with the statutory provisions which regulate the transfer of licences to warrant the Magistrates acceding to the application; and, if so, whether he would consider the advisability of taking steps to amend the law in that particular?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I am informed by the Justices that, whilst the applicant did inform them that his only interest in the business was the receipt of weekly wages, at the same time they satisfied themselves that he was about to keep the public house as manager for the owner of the premises, that he was the bonâ fide occupier of the premises under the written acceptance of him as such by the owner, and that he was a fit and proper person to hold a licence. The necessary legal conditions were, therefore, in the opinion of the Bench, fulfilled. I am advised that this opinion was well founded, and I am not prepared to propose an alteration of the law in this particular.

  EGYPTIAN FIVE PER CENT. DOMAINS LOAN.
  MR. BAUMANNfor Mr. ISAACSON (Tower Hamlets, Stepney):I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will place upon the Table of the House the correspondence relating to the rejected offers for the conversion of the Egyptian Five per Cent. Domains Loan?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): Her Majesty's Government are not in posses-
  1370
  sion of any correspondence on the subject, but have merely heard that the Egyptian delegates for the conversion (Mr. Palmer and Tigrane Pacha) did not consider the proposals for the Domains Loan acceptable. The matter is referred to in Sir E. Baring's Report on the financial situation in Egypt, which has just been distributed.

  COUNTY MEDICAL OFFICERS.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the appointment by the County Council of Ross-shire of a Medical Officer of Health for the county, with the exceptional stipulation that he should be allowed to carry on private practice; whether there were other experienced candidates for the post willing to accept it on condition that they should devote their entire time to its duties; and whether the Board of Supervision has sanctioned the appointment made by the County Council?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): My attention has been called by the hon. Member's question to the appointment by the County Council of Rossshire of a medical officer for the county without the usual stipulation that he shall not be allowed to carry on private practice. I understand that there were other candidates, but have no information as to the conditions on which they were prepared to accept office. The Board of Supervision have not sanctioned the appointment, as the Local Government Act does not make such sanction necessary. The Board, however, have intimated to the County Council that the appointment as made may in future endanger the claim of the County Council to share in the grant administered by the Secretary for Scotland, under the Local Taxation Act of last year, in aid of the salaries of medical officers for counties.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that Dr. Bruce, the medical officer in question, has altogether given up general practice, and intends to confine himself to consulting practice?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I believe that to be substantially the case.

  THE ORKNEY MAILS.
  MR. LYELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the present very defective arrangements for landing and embarking the mails at South Ronaldshay, in Orkney, and the risk incurred of losing the mail bags and large parcel post baskets owing to the transfer from the steamer taking place on the open sea to a small boat, which has afterwards to land the mails at a point two miles from the post office at St. Margaret's Hope; and whether the Steamship Company is not bound to land the mails at St. Margaret's Hope; and, if not, will he provide in the next contract that the steamer shall call at that port on its way to and from the mainland of Scotland?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): The Orkney mail steamer is required by the contract to call at Hoxa Point to put off the mails for South Ronaldshay, which are taken ashore by a boat in waiting, and then by road to the post office at St. Margaret's Hope. I understand that this arrangement is a safe one, and in the circumstances convenient, and that it has been regularly carried out for years without accident. Under present conditions, the steamer could not enter the bay at St. Margaret's Hope without running the risk of serious delay. The existing contract for this service has yet nearly three years to run, but when the time arrives for revising it the question of providing for a call of the steamer at St. Margaret's Hope shall be considered.

  VOLUNTEER DRILL-HALLS.
  MR. FRASER - MACKINTOSH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, as the erection of Volunteer drill-halls is an essential, while the cost is a heavy burden on the resources of battalions, he will introduce a Bill authorising the Public Works Loan Commissioners to grant loans over such halls on the same easy terms as are given for other public works; and whether, as the whole expenses of a Volunteer corps have to be advanced by the officers, while the Capitation Grant is not payable until six months after the close of the Volunteer
  1372
  year (October 31), he can see his way to relieve the officers by ordering a payment to account in June yearly, and the balance so soon as the returns have been checked?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): Although drill-halls are not essential, they are a very great advantage to the corps, and there is a great deal to be said in favour of the suggestion of the hon. Member, and I will take it into further consideration with the Treasury. As regards the Capitation Grant, it has been already often explained that the original payment having been made in advance, there is no tangible grievance, unless in the case of corps raised after the original advance was made. Moreover, to change the system would now involve two payments in one year, and I am not prepared to recommend this large expenditure.

  TITHE RENT AND PROPERTY TAX.
  MR. COZENS-HARDY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, since the Tithe Act, 1891, a landowner is entitled to deduct from the tithe rent-charge payable by him to the tithe owner the property tax assessed in respect thereof, and if he is not so entitled, whether property tax is payable by the landowner on the full amount of the rent received by him from the occupier, or only upon such part of the rent as does not represent tithe rent-charge; and how is such part to be ascertained by the occupier?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): A landowner is entitled to deduct the Income Tax from the tithe rent-charge payable by him to the tithe owner, provided the amount of such tithe rent-charge is included in the assessments on the occupiers of the lands out of which the tithe rent-charge arises, which will be the case unless the tithe owner has elected to be assessed, and is personally assessed, in respect of his tithe rent-charge. Information as to whether the tithe is included in the assessments of the lands out of which it arises can be obtained on application to the Surveyor of Taxes for the district in which the lands are situate.

  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS ACT.
  MR. A. H. DYKE ACLAND: I wish to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to page 52 of the last Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops, in which the case was mentioned of a postmaster in a hamlet on the top of the Chilterns, who kept a general shop, and was an employer of labour, as to whom the Inspector said—
  "The men who work for him are obliged to deal with him for everything. Money seldom or ever passes, and the weekly earnings are doled out in the shape of bad bacon, worse cheese, and doubtful groceries. The poor creatures have no choice, 'Take my goods, or go and find work elsewhere;'"
  and whether he will consider the question of continuing in the Public Service a person who is so described?
  MR. RAIKES: I have to state that, notwithstanding the strictest inquiry, I have been unable to identify the person to whom the hon. Member refers. No representation has been made to me by the Chief Inspector of Factories on the subject.
  MR. A. H. DYKE ACLAND: Does the right hon. Gentleman refuse to give the name?
  MR. RAIKES: I do not propose to give the name at present, but I understand that inquiry is being made in the district into the subject.

  PLEURO-PNEUMONIA.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been called to the statement in the Liverpool Journal of Commerce of 27th May, that
  "For several days upwards of 1,000 head of Canadian fat cattle have been detained in consequence of a suspicion of pleuro-pneumonia existing. The suspected animal was slaughtered, and the lungs sent to London for examination. Yesterday afternoon a telegram was received stating that it was not a case of pleuro-pneumonia, and the whole of the cattle have been released;"
  whether he is aware that a similar false alarm, detention, and release occurred last year at Dundee; whether, in the case of the cattle landed ex Lake Huron, they were duly inspected previous to shipment at Montreal, and branded with letters signifying that they were free from disease; whether the evidences of
  1374
  sporadic disease can be distinguished from those of pleuro-pneumonia; and whether, in view of the important interests involved, instructions will be given for a competent officer of the Board to examine the lungs of suspected animals at the port of landing, and so prevent the delay caused by forwarding them for examination to London?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): It is not strictly accurate that upwards of 1,000 cattle from Canada were detained for several days in consequence of suspicion of pleuro-pneumonia. Two cargoes of cattle were landed about noon on May 24–603 from the steamship Huron, and 309 from the steamship Mongolian—and placed in the same shed. Upon inspection, one beast was found badly affected with some form of lung disease. The Inspector telegraphed next day to the Department that he had detained the cattle, and sent the lungs for examination to London. Upon the 26th—the day afterwards—the lungs were examined, and the animals were released about noon on the same day—that is to say, after being detained for 48 hours, and not for several days. All cattle coming from free countries, of which Canada is one, are detained by the orders which have been in force for many years for not less than 12 hours for inspection, and very commonly for 24. Some of the cattle were branded, but that would be no guarantee against disease; and sporadic disease, I am advised, can be distinguished by experts from pleuro-pneumonia. It is true that a similar case occurred at Dundee last year; but I am unable to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member to leave the decision in these cases to the unsupported opinion of an Inspector at the port. The question, in my opinion, is so serious—involving, as it does, the prohibition of Canadian cattle on the one hand, or their free admission into the country on the other—that it should only be decided, in my judgment, upon the best and most careful opinions that I can obtain.

  POLICE BURGHS IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether Police Burghs in Scotland, as recognised under Section 2, Sub-section (iii.), (b.), of "The Local

  1375
  Taxation, Customs, and Excise Act, 1890," will receive directly their share of all grants under the Budget arrangements of the present year, without passing through the hands of County Councils or any other channel except the Treasury or the Scotch Department?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: This is a point which cannot be determined apart from the question as to the purposes to which the money shall be applied; but it will be duly considered in that connection.

  ANGLO-AMERICAN PARCELS POST.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, in view of the immense volume of Anglo-American trade, he will commence negotiations for the institution of a Parcel Post between the United Kingdom and the United States; and whether, if such negotiations have already been conducted, without result, he will have any objection to lay the correspondence which has passed upon the Table of the House?
  MR. RAIKES: I am glad to be able to state to the hon. Member that, recognising the importance of the matter, one of my first acts on taking office in 1886 was to make proposals to the Post Office of the United States, for the establishment of a Parcel Post with that country, and I have since lost no opportunity of urging the great advantage which would accrue to the public on both sides of the Atlantic from such a measure, but my endeavours have not yet proved successful. I will consider whether it will be practicable to lay any part of the correspondence on the Table of the House.

  A LIGHTHOUSE FOR THE SULE SKERRY.
  MR. LYELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any arrangements have been made for erecting a lighthouse on the Sule Skerry, off the North-West of Scotland; and, if so, what is to be the character of the light; and when will the work be begun?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The Board of Trade have given their statutory sanction to the erection of a first order group flashing light on Sule Skerry, and it is expected that the work will be commenced this summer.

  POSTMASTERS AND SPIRIT LICENCES.
  MR. LYELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that Mr. Anderson, the newly-appointed sub-postmaster at Baltasound, is the agent of a spirit merchant in Lerwick; and, as holder of a spirit licence, his shop is very much objected to as a post office on account of its encouraging thriftlessness and intemperance; whether he is aware that this house is most inconveniently situated, being quite away from the centre of population in the district; that, while the former Post and Telegraph Office was within the free delivery distance of a great number of the fish-curing stations, the new office is much farther off, and great annoyance will be caused to the fish-curers by the delay and increased charges arising from the change of office: and whether he will take steps to remedy these defects by requiring the new postmaster to give up his spirit licence and remove his office to a more central and convenient situation?
  MR. RAIKES: Mr. Anderson was nominated to the vacancy at Baltasound by the Lords of the Treasury with a full knowledge of the circumstances of the case. He does not hold a spirit licence, and does not propose to conduct post office business in premises in which that of a licensed grocer is carried on. As at present advised I see no sufficient reason for cancelling Mr. Anderson's nomination. I will inquire if the postmaster can obtain premises more conveniently situated than his present ones.

  MAJOR GRANT AND THE NATIVE INDIAN TROOPS.
  VISCOUNT CURZON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he has taken into consideration the great gallantry displayed by the Native troops engaged at Thobal under Major Grant; and whether he will recommend that some recognition of their services should be granted?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): Yes; the Government of India has determined, with the approval of the Secretary of State, to recognise

  1377
  the great gallantry of the Native troops under the command of Major Grant in the following way. The Order of British India will be conferred on all the officers, and the Order of Merit will be conferred on the non-commissioned officers and certain selected men. The commissioned and non-commissioned officers fit for promotion-will receive a step of rank, and six months' pay and allowances will be given to all ranks, including camp followers.

  IRELAND—LAND COMMISSION, LONDONDERRY.
  Mr. LEA: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the Chief Commissioner will hear fair rent appeals from the County of Londonderry, and if the sitting will be held in the County?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Irish Land Commissioners report that they intend to hold a sitting at Coleraine on 14th July next, at which fair rent appeals from the County Londonderry will be heard.

  MINE INSPECTORSHIP, LIVERPOOL DISTRICT.
  MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the fact that Mr. E. E. Stokes has been appointed Assistant Inspector of Mines in the Liverpool district; whether that district "comprises among other places the Counties Denbigh, Flint, and Anglesey, in the Principality of Wales, in which the Welsh language is generally spoken; whether Mr. Stokes has any knowledge of that language; whether, among the candidates for the post filled up by this appointment, there were several persons, having a thorough knowledge of the Welsh language, who were also in other respects perfectly qualified and competent to discharge the duties; and whether, under these circumstances, the appointment of a gentleman ignorant of that language to the office in question is in accordance with the provisions of Section 39, Sub-section 1, of "The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887"?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir; it is the fact that Mr. Stokes has been appointed
  1378
  Assistant Inspector of Mines to the Liverpool district, having been superior to several candidates in a competitive examination. I am not aware that he is acquainted with the Welsh language. The Liverpool district includes three Welsh counties, of which one, Anglesey, according to the last Return, produces no mineral. The other two produce only about one-fifth, of the total amount of coal raised in the whole district. I do not consider that the, section quoted precludes the appointment of Mr. Stokes to a district which is only partially Welsh, and which; has hitherto been efficiently served by English-speaking Inspectors.
  MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: Are we, then, to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that a gentleman, who does not understand Welsh, is to exercise this jurisdiction over the many thousands of persons in the districts mentioned who speak no other language?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am not aware of the number of persons speaking the Welsh language in those districts.
  MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: I beg to give notice that I will take an early opportunity of calling the attention of the House to this subject.

  DUBLIN SOCIAL CLUBS.
  MR. M. J. KENNY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will give a Return showing the number of clubs, with their names and where situate, in Dublin; the membership fees of each; the increase in the number, if any, since the. Select Committee sat on the Sunday Closing (Ireland) Acts in 1888; the Sunday and week - day hours of opening and closing of such clubs; and the regulations of each club, if any, which govern the admission of non-members?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Apart from the better class social clubs in Dublin, and the boating and yachting, clubs in its vicinity, there are in, Dublin 21, clubs, and these, with; three exceptions, are used by the artisan and labouring classes. Of these 21 clubs, seven have been established since 1888. The details desired by the hon. Member are rather voluminous to give in the form of a reply to a question, but I shall be happy to hand

  1379
  him a copy of the Return furnished by the Commissioner of Police on the subject.

  THE MEDICAL OFFICER OF THE GORTIN DISPENSARY DISTRICT.
  MR. M. J. KENNY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Local Government Board has taken any action consequent on the Report by Dr. Stafford of the result of a sworn inquiry held before him into certain charges against Dr. Given, medical officer of the Gortin (County Tyrone) Dispensary District; if the Local Government Board Inspector reports that the third charge, which is described in the letter of the Assistant Secretary, Mr. McSheehan, as of a serious nature, has been fully and clearly proved, and
  "Afforded just, and proper cause of complaint on the part of Catherine O'Hara (complainant), and her relations, owing to the unfeeling and harsh language indulged in by the medical officer towards the girl";
  and if the Local Government Board in coming to a decision will give consideration to the fact that those members of the Dispensary Committee, who, notwithstanding the result of the inquiry, decline to recommend Dr. Given's removal, voted originally against asking for the inquiry in question?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Dispensary Committee having by a majority expressed their opinion that, having regard to the severe reprimand administered to the medical officer referred to he should not be called upon to resign, the Local Government Board have decided that they will not take further action in the present case; but they have warned the medical officer that any further case of the kind would be followed by his immediate removal.

  RUGBY SANITARY AUTHORITY.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that on 25th May the Inspector of Nuisances reported to the Rugby Rural Sanitary Authority that he had seized on 20th May a quantity of meat unfit for human food deposited in a cart owned by Mr. Thomas White, butcher, of Willoughby, addressed to a meat salesman in the Metropolitan Market, and actually at the railway station, and that the meat was afterwards seen by the Medical Officer of Health
  1380
  and a Justice of the Peace, and was condemned and destroyed; whether the Medical Officer of Health repeatedly urged the authority to prosecute White, but that by a majority of one they declined to do so; whether White has twice previously been convicted before the Rugby Bench, and once before the Daventry Bench, for similar offences, and was sentenced to two terms of imprisonment of three months each, and on the last occasion fined £40; and whether he will make immediate inquiries of the Medical Officer of Health and the Inspector of Nuisances of the Rugby Rural Sanitary Authority and give directions that a prosecution shall take place?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I have made inquiry, and am informed that the facts are substantially as stated in the question, and that, although the Sanitary Authority by a majority of one declined to prosecute White, that majority was occasioned by the report of a case at Burton Latimer, in Northamptonshire, which was commented upon by several of the members of the Sanitary Authority, and in which the conviction had been quashed on the ground that the meat had not been actually exposed or offered for sale, and by the absence of the clerk through illness, who, no doubt, could have explained that the case cited had no bearing on the one under consideration. I have no authority to give directions that a prosecution shall take place.

  NEWFOUNDLAND—SEIZURE OF THE SCHOONER MARY BY THE FRENCH.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the seizure of the schooner Mary, by the French authorities at St. Pierre, in July last, and the confiscation of her cargo, which belonged to Messrs. Goodridge, of St. John's, Newfoundland, and who were not the owners of the vessel, the Mary having only put into St. Pierre through stress of weather?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Action has been suspended in the case of the Mary pending the decision of the Court of Appeal in Paris. As soon as the text of that decision is received, the case will be fully considered.

  THE NEW ART GALLERY.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in stating that the Professors of Science were present when the ground for the Art Gallery was being considered, he meant to imply that they expressed their approval of the allocation of that ground to an Art Gallery?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I did not state that the Professors of Science were present when the ground for the British Art Gallery was being considered, but that the responsible representatives of the Science and Art Department were present on that occasion. My statement, therefore, contained no implication as to the views held by the Professors of Science with regard to the site selected.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education in what way the opinions of the scientific staff of the Science and Art Department have been taken with reference to the new Art Gallery proposed to be built on land bought for scientific purposes?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): Some of the Professors of the College of Science made a representation on the subject to the Lord President, who forwarded it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to give notice that on the Estimates I shall direct the attention of the House to this question, and give the House the history of this mysterious transaction.

  LABOURERS' WAGES IN DUBLIN.
  MR. J. NOLAN (Louth, N.) for Mr. GLANCY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the labourers and artisans in the employment of the Board of Works in the County and City of Dublin are paid less than the ordinary rates of wages at present prevailing in that district for those two classes of workmen respectively; and, if so, whether he will direct that the wages of the employés of the Board of Works referred to be increased, so as at least to make them equal with the wages paid by private firms?
  SIR H. MAXWELL (for the SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Jackson,): I learn from the Board
  1382
  of Works in Ireland that they have no exact information as to the rates of wages paid by private firms in Dublin, but that they are of opinion that, looking to the conditions and the constancy of employment given by the Board, the wages of the men employed by it compare favourably with those paid by private firms.

  TRALEE AND DINGLE LIGHT RAILWAY.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Tralee and Dingle Light Railway Company, with a capital of £150,000, consists of nine members, while there are 10 Directors, only two of whom hold shares in the Company, and that the 10 Directors will be able to draw £20 a year each from the receipts; whether he is aware that the Directors, over seven months before the opening the line, appointed a Secretary at £200 a year, and a Manager at £150, which they have lately increased to £200 a year; while, on several other railway lines, the duties of the two offices are performed by one official; whether the Secretary was appointed at a meeting of the Board without any previous public announcement, that he is the son of the Vice Chairman of the Company, both of whom are engaged in local commercial business, and that the appointment has given rise to a great deal of dissatisfaction among the other local traders, since their business over the line will be open to the inspection of a rival trader, thus placing them at a very serious disadvantage; and whether, since this line was built under the Tramways (Ireland) Act of 1883, the Treasury will contribute half the required guarantee, when such expenses have been incurred?
  SIR H. MAXWELL (for Mr. JACKSON): The Treasury has no official information, but I understand that the Tralee and Dingle Light Railway Company consists of 11 shareholders, who hold the entire capital of £150,000 between them. There are 10 Directors, of whom 6 are appointed by the shareholders, 2 of them holding shares in the Company; 3 are appointed by Baronies, of whom one holds shares in the Company; and the 10th is appointed by the Tralee Town Commissioners. There is no qualification necessary for Directors. The fees

  1383
  payable to Directors are £1 1s. per meeting—not exceeding £20 per annum each. I am informed that the Directors have received no fees for the last five years. A Secretary was appointed in May, 1885, at a salary of £200 per annum, and his successor, the present Secretary, was appointed in August last at the same salary. The traffic manager was also appointed in August last at £150 per annum. He also acts as station master in Tralee, and I am informed that the Directors propose to increase his salary by £50 per annum. The Secretary was unanimously appointed by the Board, but without previous public announcement; he is the son of the Vice Chairman, who, like himself, is engaged in local commercial business. The contribution of the Treasury to the guarantee on the shares will be paid, subject to the conditions of the Tramways (Ireland) Act, 1883, which provides for a proper audit of the accounts.

  THE IRISH CENSUS.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has yet obtained such an approximate Report of the results of the Census of 1891 in Ireland as will enable him to inform the House as to what electoral divisions in what counties will form congested district counties after this Census has been published; whether he will order a map to be constructed showing the electoral divisions in question for the information of Members; and whether he will present a Return to the House showing the capital and annual value of the Contingent Guarantee Fund in the case of each congested district county?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not yet obtained the approximate Report referred to by the hon. Member; but I have requested that it be prepared as expeditiously as possible.

  IRISH LAND PURCHASERS AND THE INCOME TAX.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what Schedule or Schedules, and on what principle, purchasers under the Land Purchase Acts in Ireland are liable to be assessed for the purpose of Income and Property Tax; what would be the
  1384
  amount paid under Schedule B by a tenant whose rent is £150 and the rateable value of whose holding is £100; and what would be the amount paid under Schedules A and B by the same person after he had purchased at 20 years' purchase under the Land Purchase Acts (presuming in each case his total income to exceed £400)?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Purchasers under the Land Purchase Acts are liable to be assessed to Income Tax under Schedules A and B in the same manner as other owners of property. The tenant under the circumstances described would pay 2¼d. in the £1 under Schedule B on £100. He would pay on £100 at 6d. under Schedule A, but he would be entitled to deduct the tax paid on that portion of the annuity which represents interest. It is hardly likely that many cases would arise in which a purchasing tenant would be assessed at such an amount as would make him liable to Income Tax, but in any case of difficulty the Board of Inland Revenue would doubtless be able to deal with it on its merits.

  LOCAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. M. J. KENNY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland if, in the event of progress not being made with the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Bill, he will consider the advisability of detaching Part IV. and introducing it as a separate Bill?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The Bill referred to has now been before the public for some time, and I have received numerous communications on the subject which lead me to believe that the Bill will not prove contentious, and to hope that it will be possible to pass it into law during the present Session.

  ETHER AS AN INTOXICANT.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREfor Sir LYON PLAYFAIR: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the steps taken to stop the use of ether and methylated spirit as intoxicants, in Tyrone and other parts of Ireland, have been successful?
  MR. GOSCHEN: As regards ether, I am informed that the effect produced by

  1385
  scheduling it under the Sale of Poisons Act has been most beneficial. Its use as a beverage is said to have decreased greatly, and is alleged by many to have ceased entirely. It is further stated that the sales of the wholesale chemists in Belfast have fallen off about 90 per cent. I hope that the drinking of methylated spirits may be prevented by the means taken to render it more nauseous, and by stricter regulations, which have been approved by the Board of Inland Revenue.
  SIR W. LAWSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any evidence that ether does any more harm than whisky?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Yes, Sir; I believe it is so.

  H.M.S. WARSPITE.
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is correct that serious defects have been reported regarding the hull of the armoured cruiser Warspite, flagship on the Pacific station; if so, can he state the nature of the defects, and the time likely to be occupied in repairing them, and if it is true that the Admiralty have asked for 12 shipwrights and four caulkers to be sent from Sheerness; and, if so, why, seeing that there are Government Yards at Halifax and Esquimault?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. FORWOOD,): Leakages have developed between the teak sheathing and the outer iron skin of the ship, which require examination, and, as it is a work of a very special character, it was considered, in the interests of economy and efficiency, desirable to send out men specially acquainted with that class of work. The Admiralty establishment at Esquimalt is very limited in extent.

  NYASSALAND.
  MR. A. E. PEASE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government has any information as to the engagement of 500 men, more or less, at Zanzibar, by Mr. H. A. Johnston, Her Majesty's Commissioner, for service in Nyassaland; whether the contracts made with these men are with themselves direct, or with any third
  1386
  party; and whether Her Majesty's Government can assure the House that no slaves will be allowed to be engaged either by Mr. Commissioner Johnston, Lieutenant Stairs, or any other British subject?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: We have had no Report as to the engagement of porters at Zanzibar. It was Mr. Johnston's intention to obtain some there for his expedition. He would doubtless, as a British Consular officer, be careful as to his contracts. There is no regulation against the engagement of slaves as porters, provided that contracts are made direct with them, nor would it seem desirable to deprive slaves of the advantage of free labour under European leaders; but it is the duty of the British Representative to do his best to secure that there is no abuse, and that the contracts are not made with the masters. This duty is not confined to engagements made on behalf of British subjects.
  MR. A. E. PEASE: Will the right hon. Gentleman place on the Table copies of the contracts entered into between Mr. Johnston and these men?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Government have no knowledge of any contracts, and do not possess copies of them. On previous occasions they have had positive reports that all contracts have been made between the persons hiring and the men hired.

  THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information as to the reported action of the French war vessels on the West Coast of Newfoundland, in preventing the sale of bait to American fishing vessels by the inhabitants of St. George's Bay; and whether such action is an infringement of the Treaty of 1818 with the United States?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: A telegram has been received from the Governor of Newfoundland stating that a French officer is reported to have warned the inhabitants of St. George's Bay not to sell bait to United States fishermen, under penalty of seizure of their nets and boats. This does not appear to be a specific infraction of the Treaty of 1818 with the United States, which only secures to United States citizens

  1387
  the right of fishing on certain parts of the coast. But it constitutes, if correctly reported, an interference with the rights of British subjects, and an assumption of jurisdiction inconsistent with the Sovereign rights of the British Crown, and Her Majesty's Government have at once brought the matter under the notice of the French Government.

  OCEAN PENNY POSTAGE
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether instructions have been given to the British delegates at the Postal Union Conference in Vienna to insist upon and obtain for this country perfect freedom of action as regards the institution of Imperial Penny Postage, or of Ocean Penny Postage, between the United Kingdom and the British Colonies, without reference to the rates of postage payable on letters exchanged between the United Kingdom or the British Colonies and other countries?
  MR. RAIKES: It would, I believe, be contrary to precedent to publish to the world the instructions given to the British delegates at Vienna while the Conference is in session; and it would certainly be highly inconvenient to our Representatives in conducting negotiations to adopt such a course. I can only say, therefore, that the question of reducing postage rates has certainly not been lost sight of in framing their Instructions.

  BARON CLEMENT J. P. PEN DE BODE.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury with reference to the answer of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, dated 28th August 1890, to the Memorial of the representatives of the late Baron Clement Joseph Philippe Pen de Bode, praying for compensation for the confiscation of certain estates by the French Revolutionary Government in 1793, whether the claim preferred by the late Baron for such compensation had been defeated on purely technical grounds, and whether that claim had been in 1852 earnestly recommended by a Select Committee of the House of Lords to the favourable consideration of that House as a case of "great hardship and injustice," and had
  1388
  been from time to time supported by a large number of influential Members of both Houses of Parliament; and whether, having regard to the fact that a large surplus of the money paid by the French Government for the satisfaction of these claims had remained in the hands of the British Government, and been devoted to other purposes, the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury would, in the event of the strong moral claim of the late Baron's representatives for such compensation being established to their satisfaction, consider the justice of making them some grant, as compensation for the very heavy loss they had sustained mainly through an erroneous decision of the Commissioners originally appointed to investigate these claims?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): The full answers to the questions raised by my hon. Friend are too long for me to give now, but I can briefly Bay the claim preferred by the late Baron was not defeated on purely technical grounds. The question is one that has often been brought before the House; but the answers given have always been the same, namely, that Her Majesty's Government deny both the justice of the claim and the possession of means for meeting it, and have always invited the production of proof. The Treasury have no power to make any grant to the late Baron's representatives, as Parliament alone can make it. If the hon. Member wishes it, I shall be very glad to show him a Memorandum which deals fully with all the points he raises.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: Does the right hon. Gentleman invite the representatives of the late Baron to give proof of their claim?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Courts are open to the representatives of the late Baron de Bode if they have any legal claim to assert.

  THE HANSARD CONTRACT.
  MR. A. A. BAUMANN (for Mr. WOOTTON ISAACSON): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the termination of the Hansard Contract at the close of the present Session, any decision has been come to as to the arrangements for the future reporting of

  1389
  the Proceedings of Parliament; whether he is aware of the opinion held by the reporting profession that the two elements in the contract, i.e. that of reporting and that of printing and publishing, are distinct, and should form the subjects of separate contracts; whether he will appoint a small Departmental Committee to consider the working of the contract now expiring; and whether, before Vote 23 of the Civil Service Estimates, Class II., is taken, he will be prepared to announce the terms of the new contract for which tenders will be invited?
  SIR H. MAXWELL (for Mr. JACKSON): It was stated in Committee of Supply that notice would be given to terminate the contracts and fresh tenders invited, and this will be done. I have heard of the opinion referred to in the second paragraph of the hon. Member's question, that the reporting and printing and publishing should form subjects of separate contracts, but I entirely disagree with it. As the whole question was considered by a Joint Committee of the two Houses only a few years ago, on whose Report the conditions of the present contract were based, I see no object in appointing a Departmental Committee to consider the subject. The conditions proposed for the new contract are now under consideration.

  FREE EDUCATION.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will consider the advisability of taking advantage of the introduction of a Free Education Bill entirely to dissociate education from all connection with the administration of the Poor Law, by repealing not only the clause of the Education Act of 1876 which compels parents of children whose fees are remitted in voluntary schools to appear before the Boards of Guardians, but also that section of the same Act which provides that the educational authority in a parish outside the jurisdiction of a School Board shall be appointed by the Guardians of the Union comprising such parish? I also beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the following statement in the last Report of the Committee of Council on Education:—
  1390
  "We are sorry to find, on examining the school Returns, that the education of so many children of 10 years of age and upwards is discontinued as soon as, by passing the prescribed standard, they are freed from the obligation to attend school and become entitled to go to work. Out of 481,106 children presented in Standard IV. in 1888 as many as 167,742 disappeared from the examination lists of our schools in 1889, while the 309,388 scholars in Standard V. of 1888 fell in the year to 138,864, and the 127,863 scholars in Standard VI. to 38,362";
  and whether, in view of these facts and figures, the Government will consider the advisability of freeing all the standards, and especially the higher standards, from the payment of fees?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Member's questions seek to anticipate the announcement which will be made upon the introduction of the Education Bill, and I must ask him to exercise a little patience for a few days.

  THE LABOUR COMMISSION.
  MR. O. V. MORGAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he is now in a position to answer his question, whether, in consequence of the great interest felt throughout the country in the question of labour, he will arrange that Members of Parliament shall be regularly supplied with verbatim reports of the evidence to be given before the Labour Commission; and whether he will also arrange that the public may be able to purchase copies of the evidence in the same way as Parliamentary Papers are usually supplied?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I will consult the Commission as to the hon. Member's question, but perhaps I may be allowed to state my own opinion. I have no doubt the Commission will be willing and anxious to report the evidence which they receive at short and convenient intervals; but if the hon. Member means that the Commission should publish verbatim reports from day to day, and communicate them to Members of Parliament as Parliamentary Papers, I think that would be an extremely inconvenient course, and one which I could not recommend.

  COLONISATION.
  MR. SETON-KARR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government propose to increase the grant to the Emigrants' Information Office, as recommended in the Report of the Colonisation Committee; and, if no decision on the subject has yet been arrived at, whether, in view of the above recommendation, the Government are prepared to give the subject their early and favourable attention?
  SIR H. MAXWELL: The question of increasing the grant to the Emigrants' Information Office is now receiving the most careful consideration of the Treasury and of the Colonial Office.

  THE CATTLE TRADE BETWEEN IRELAND AND GLASGOW.
  COLONEL WARING (Down, N.), for Mr. PARKER SMITH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the great sufferings undergone by cattle in their steamer passage from Ireland to the Clyde ports; whether it is a common occurrence, in the steamers engaged in this traffic, for cattle to be smothered and trampled on, or to have their backs and legs broken, besides suffering minor injuries, which involve great torture to the animals and much injury to their meat and hides; and in particular, whether the cases described in the last Report of the Glasgow and West of Scotland Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, with respect to which he has been supplied with names and particulars, are correctly stated; whether in February, 1889, a Memorial was presented to the Irish Privy Council by the master fleshers of Glasgow, calling attention to the condition in which cattle brought to the Port of Glasgow by the Irish steamers arrive, and stating
  "That in many cases the animals die on the voyage in consequence of being trampled upon or gored by their companions, and even when the animals arrive at the Port of Glasgow they are so bruised by having to pass through too narrow hatches when being shipped or landed, and by falls, goring, or other calamities, that they are quite unfit for human food when slaughtered";
  whether the statements of this Memorial are correct, and whether the state of matters continues practically unchanged
  1392
  since the date of this Memorial; and whether he is prepared to recommend the enforcement in regard to these boats of the regulations in force for the Transatlantic traffic, or to take other steps for diminishing this evil?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am afraid it is the case that cattle suffer considerably during their voyage from Ireland to Great Britain, especially in heavy weather. But the Board of Agriculture have no reason to believe that it is a common occurrence for cattle to be smothered or trampled on, or to have their backs and legs broken on the passage from Ireland to England. With regard to the specific cases referred to in the Report of the Glasgow and West of Scotland Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, inquiries are now being made by my directions, but I am unable to say at present whether the statements made are correct. The statements referred to in the Memorial presented to the Irish Privy Council in February, 1889, so far as the Board of Agriculture are aware, are incorrect; and although serious, and sometimes fatal, cases occasionally occur, I am informed that they are very rare, and that more suffering and more injury are caused by the way in which the animals gore each other with their horns than by any other means. As a matter of fact, the same regulations as for the Transatlantic traffic are in force at this moment, but the conditions under which the Irish traffic and the Atlantic traffic are conducted are so different that I could not undertake on all occasions that they should be identical, nor would it indeed be always desirable. I am, however, inquiring carefully into the whole question of the Irish cattle traffic, and every effort will be made by the Board of Agriculture to diminish as far as possible the sufferings of cattle coming to England from Ireland.

  THE COURSE OF BUSINESS.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Perhaps the First Lord of the Treasury would now find it convenient to make a statement as to the general course of business?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not in a position to make a statement as to the general course of business, but I think I can satisfy the House as to what the

  1393
  business will be during the next 10 days or fortnight. As the House is aware, the Government are not under any immediate necessity to ask the House for further facilities, because the House has already ordered that the Land Purchase Bill shall have precedence of all other business on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays. It is not the intention of the Government to ask for Wednesdays at present. Having regard to the fact that there are certain Bills promoted by hon. Gentlemen which are in various stages of progress, it would be perhaps a little hard upon them that we should take the one, two, or possibly three Wednesdays which would give them an opportunity of passing those Bills into law. There is one statement which I think I must renew, and that is that the Government feel that they are still bound by the engagement they made early in the Session to make every effort to bring about the Prorogation at the end of the month of July. In those efforts I am certain we shall have the assistance of the House to carry out that engagement, for it is one which concerns hon. Members in all parts of the House quite as much as it concerns the Government. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated the other day, in answer to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, that I should to-day name the day on which we propose to take the First Reading of the new Education Bill. I had hoped that it might have been possible to get through the Report stage of the Land Purchase Bill before it became necessary to take up any other business, and I still remain of opinion that we should part substantially with that measure before we enter upon another important subject; but I recognise the just and legitimate desire on the part of the House to know definitely when the Education Bill is to be introduced, and the Government, therefore, propose to take the First Reading of that measure on Monday next. There is one other matter for which the right hon. Member for Derby has desired a day, and that is the Motion on the Manipur occurrences. I observe he has not renewed the notice of his Motion on the Paper.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: That was pending your statement on the course of business.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I concluded that was so, but I think it would be convenient that it should appear on the Paper. Although I am not able to name a precise day, I think it should follow on the next day after the Report stage of the Land Purchase Bill has been disposed of, if that arrangement is satisfactory to him. I may simply mention that, as soon as it is necessary, I shall ask the House to continue the appropriation of the whole of the Tuesday and Friday Sittings for Government business. I think it will be felt that Tuesday and Friday evenings are no longer necessary for private Members' business, and, on the other hand, it will greatly facilitate the progress of the business of the House if we are able to enter upon Government Business at 3 o'clock and continue until 12 without interruption. Taking into account the Bills that have passed through the Standing Committees, and including the Scotch Private Bill Procedure Bill, and the Clergy Discipline Bill, which has come down from the House of Lords, and in which the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian has expressed a strong interest, I still retain the opinion that the measures before the House may be disposed of, that ample time for the consideration of Supply may be given, and yet we may secure the Prorogation before the end of July.
  MR. F. S. POWELL: Is the First Lord of the Treasury able to make any announcement respecting the Factories Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I cannot say anything with regard to that until the Motion as to Manipur is disposed of.
  MR. ROBY: May I ask if the First Lord of the Treasury will kindly consider the possibility of not taking to-morrow week. I have succeeded in getting the first place on that day for a question of very great interest to hon. Members on both sides —i.e., the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have the greatest sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. I greatly desire that the eight hours mining question should be considered; but I am afraid that under the arrangements of the House, as they at present stand, next Tuesday will not be open to the hon. Member. If he will mention the matter again I will see what can be done.
  DR. CAMERON: When may we expect to have information regarding the manner in which the Government propose to allocate Scotland's share of the money, the English portion of which is to be given to free education? At present we know nothing.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not surprised that the hon. Member has no information with regard to a measure which is not to be introduced till Monday next.
  DR. CAMERON: Are we to understand that the Bill will provide for the allocation of Scotland's portion of the money?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: There will be no provisions in the Education Bill itself as to Ireland and Scotland, but an indication of the intentions of the Government with respect to those countries will be given when the Bill is introduced.
  MR. CAUSTON: Will the Education Bill be circulated amongst Members the day after its introduction?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Yes, Sir.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: When do the Government propose to deal with the Registration of Assurances Bill? Will they consent to refer it to a Select Committee?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Before that question is answered may I say that the arrangements the right hon. Gentleman has proposed seem to be satisfactory. I understand that as soon as the Report stage of the Land Bill is concluded he will give a day for the Manipur Debate. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what will be the business for the next fortnight? He said nothing as to beyond next Monday, and I suppose we may take it for granted that the rest of the week will be principally devoted to Supply. I also gathered from the right hon. Gentleman that if the Irish Land Bill Report is concluded this week, as I hope it may be, he would not stand in the way of the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles. [Ministerial cries of "No."] I would rather take the answer from the right hon. Gentleman than from hon. Gentlemen who sit on the third Bench opposite. I understood that he would entertain a proposal not to take Tuesday away with reference to the Eight Hours Mining Bill, which, of course, is a question of great importance, and which interests
  1396
  everybody in and out of the House. At all events, I hope he will tell us what he expects to occupy the main part of next week.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am very glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that he has reason to hope that the Land Purchase Bill will be through Report this week. That is a very satisfactory intimation from him, because I know it is an intimation in the fulfilment of which he has very considerable power. In the event of the Manipur Debate being taken at 3 o'clock on Friday, which is the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman—I can hardly suppose that the Land Purchase Bill will be through Report before Thursday—we should proceed with the Education Bill on Monday, and then with the Bills from the Standing Committees that have to go before the House of Lords, beginning with the Public Health Bill, followed by the Factories Bill. In answer to the question of the hon. Member for Eccles, I think I stated that if he would renew his request I would take care to give it consideration. I could not come to any engagement. I recognise that the matter is one of very great importance, and I have always said I should be exceedingly glad to have it discussed.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: What about Supply? The right hon. Gentleman did not say a word about that.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I referred to it in my first statement. It is, however, a matter of great importance that we should get on with the Bills I have mentioned before we proceed with Supply. Any opportunity we may find to proceed with Supply will be availed of.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Perhaps the Attorney General for Ireland can now reply to my question?
  MR. MADDEN: I think that, having regard to the important questions which are raised by the Bill, the course my hon. Friend suggests would, perhaps, be a desirable one, but I cannot make any definite statement without consulting my right hon. Friends the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chief Secretary.
  MR. SEXTON: I am sorry the Chief Secretary has just left the House, because I wish to put to him two questions of some importance. In the absence of the right hon. Gentleman I will put the

  1397
  questions to the Attorney General for Ireland, who may, perhaps, be able to give me an answer. The first question has an important bearing on the time likely to be occupied by the Land Purchase Bill: it is, whether the Government intend to accept the Amendment which has gone through Committee, and now stands in the name of the hon. Member for South Derry (Mr. Lea)—an Amendment which revolutionises the constitution of the Land Commission and separates that subject from the Land Department Bill, because if that Amendment is accepted, I calculate it will add a week to the time occupied by the Report stage of the Bill. The second question relates to the long leaseholders clause of the Land Department (Ireland) Bill. I presume that after the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury I may conclude that the Land Department Bill is abandoned for the present Session. The Chief Secretary stated on Friday that if there were a general desire that the long leaseholders clause should be introduced as a separate measure he would consider the point. I have made inquiry, and I find that the introduction of the long leaseholders clause, as a separate Bill, would be favourably regarded by Irish Members on this side of the House. Under these circumstances, I beg to ask if the Government will introduce that clause as an independent Bill.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: May I ask whether the First Lord of the Treasury is aware that in proposing a 3 o'clock Sitting for Tuesday he is virtually taking away all opportunity of discussing the system under which illiterate voters vote under the Ballot Act?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Member has overlooked the fact that the House has ordered a 3 o'clock Sitting for the consideration of the Land Purchase Bill, and, therefore, it is not my act. The question the hon. Gentleman desires to raise is an important one, and he will doubtless find an opportunity of raising it.
  Mr. A. J.BALFOUR having returned, Mr. SEXTON repeated his former question.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With regard to the second question put to me, if I find, from inquiries I am able to make
  1398
  from gentlemen in other parts of the House, that the proposed Bill which the hon. Member for South Belfast has suggested will meet with equal favour from them as the hon. Member assures me it will meet with from his friends, I, of course, would be glad to introduce it and carry out the pledge I have often given to the hon. Member for South Derry, that I would do what I could to settle this question. With regard to the first question raised by the hon. Gentleman, that again merely has reference to an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for South Derry. Of course, it is rather premature, until I have heard the Debate, to state positively the course the Government are going to pursue; but as the hon. Member has pointed out, the Amendment is substantially identical with a provision contained in my own Land Department Bill. I look upon it with favour, and, as at present advised, I think its addition to the present Bill would be a great improvement.
  MR. SEXTON: Considering the time of the Session, will the right hon. Gentleman consult with his Colleagues and see whether it is desirable to separate from the Land Department a provision which has nothing to do with the Land Purchase Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not agree with the observations of the hon. Gentleman. I think it has a great deal to do with land purchase, and that it will greatly improve the working of the machinery by which land purchase is to be carried out.
  MR. M. J. KENNY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the fact that the Amendment standing in the name of the Member for South Derry practically incorporates the first ten sections of the Land Department Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, it is perfectly true that the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Derry does not cover the whole of the ground covered in the Land Department Bill; but it does embody a portion of those provisions, and, I think, a very valuable and important portion. It would not be possible for us to introduce the whole of the provisions on this subject contained in the Land Department Bill, but that portion of it that is

  1399
  embodied in the Amendment may with advantage be incorporated in the Land Purchase Bill.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in dealing with this subject, be good enough to bear in mind that the hon. Member for South Derry, by withdrawing his Amendment from the consideration of the Committee, has deprived Members of the House of their constitutional right to discuss the matter in Committee?
  MR. HENEAGE: Will the Home Secretary state what course he intends to take with regard to the Juvenile Offenders Bill? Does he still propose to refer it to the Standing Committee on Law?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I think that would be the best and most convenient course, and if I have an opportunity I shall move to take it.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I should like to ask the Under Secretary for India whether the State trials in Manipur are likely to be terminated and reported on within the next few days, and in time for the Debate?
  SIR J. GORST: I must ask for notice of the question.

  LICENSED HOUSES (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Address for—
  "Return showing the total number of Public Houses licensed for the sale of Beer, or Beer and Wine, to be consumed ' on ' the premises in England and Wales, and the total number in each county and borough (the Return to be confined to Public Houses licensed for the sale of Beer, or Beer and Wine, to be consumed ' on' the premises, which were licensed prior to the 1st day of May 1869.")—(Mr. Forrest Fulton.)

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND CHARGES [PAYMENTS].
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, and so far as those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund, of any sums lent by the National Debt Commissioners for the commutation of annuities under "The Light Railways (Ireland) Act, 1889," in pursuance of any Act of the present Session, to amend certain provisions of the Law with respect to money charged on or payable out of the Consolidated Fund, and with respect to Public Accounts (Queen's Recommendation signified), Tomorrow.—(Mr. Jackson.)
  MARRIAGE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 348.]
  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Herbert Samuel Leon, esquire, for the County of Buckingham (Northern or Buckingham Division).
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SEAL FISHERY (BEHRING SEA) BILL. (No. 345.)
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I wish to draw the attention of the House to a question of some urgency. The House is no doubt aware that there have been points of difference between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States with reference to the Behring Sea fisheries, and that claims have been advanced by the United States which have led to some dispute. It is the desire of Her Majesty's Government that a settlement of an amicable character should be arrived at, although it is impossible for the Government to concur in the claims made by the United States to undisputed possession of the rights of fishing in Behring Sea. I refer to this question in order to indicate generally the reasons which have induced Her Majesty's Government to ask for powers from Parliament under this Bill. A desire has been expressed that the question should be settled by arbitration, and I feel sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House will infinitely prefer that the matter, in which a serious difference of opinion has arisen between the two Governments, should be settled by friendly arbitration rather than by resort to a more barbarous course. We have had communications both with the United States Government and the Government of Canada with the view of arriving at an arrangement by which this question might be settled by means of friendly arbitration. There has been delay in submitting the question to the consideration of

  1401
  Parliament, and that delay has been due to difficulties which I am sure gentlemen who have had any experience must be aware accompany anything like a tripartite negotiation. The delay has been increased by the painful and lamentable circumstances under which the Government of Canada are at the present moment placed. The Prime Minister of Canada is a man who, whatever may be the views which individuals may take of his Party conduct in the past, has earned the respect and the admiration of people of all Parties who have any knowledge whatever of the services which he has rendered to the Dominion and to the Empire at large. There can be but one feeling of deep sorrow that that life, which has been so valuable to Canada, seems now about to come to an end. But the circumstances under which the Government of Canada have been placed during the last two or three weeks have been circumstances of extreme difficulty, and the consent which Her Majesty's Government have received to the proposals which we are now about to make only reached us late last week, in time for the notice which I gave on Thursday in this House. The consent of the Dominion Government is subject to certain conditions, which, as far as the Government are concerned, appear to us to be very reasonable. They say it is reasonable that a ship under the British flag for lawful fishing, as we hold, in the Behring Sea should be compensated for any loss sustained by reason of the prohibition under the proposed Order in Council. We accept that proposal in principle, but it must be remarked that under the Bill which I now place before the House, sealing will not be prohibited in all seas, but simply in the Behring Sea, and the effect will be that there will be a greatly diminished catch of seals, and consequently a great increase of price for sealskins obtained outside the Behring Sea. The proposal is to prohibit sealing north of the Aleutian Island in the Behring Sea, and leave the seal fishery perfectly open to all ships south of those islands and outside the Behring Sea. The prohibition will be simply for a limited time, in order that a sufficient, and no more than a sufficient, period should have elapsed during which it may be possible for the
  1402
  arbitrators to make inquiries as to the necessity for a close time for the seal species, and to make their award or awards. That period, as has been shown by the Papers which have been placed in the Vote Office this afternoon, is named by Mr. Blaine himself as a period extending from May 1, 1892, within which period the arbitrators shall render a final award or awards to their respective Governments. One of the conditions on which the United States Government have insisted is that 7,500 seals should be taken on the Aleutian Islands for the use of the natives who are employed there. Her Majesty's Government at first greatly objected to that proposal, but when we came to examine it more carefully we were obliged to admit that it was reasonable, and it is a condition from which we are now unable to depart. The catch up to a recent period has been as high as 60,000, and it is shown by the Papers now in the possession of the House that the average for the last 20 years on those Islands has been upwards of 90,000 seals per annum. This shows that the United States Government are prepared to make a considerable sacrifice in their endeavour to avert what they believe to be a very serious calamity. Her Majesty's Government do not propose that the Order in Council shall be issued unless Russia also consents to the entire prohibition of seal catching in the Behring Sea. The amount of compensation to be given will be ascertained by a Commission and a careful inquiry on the spot. The arrangements for such a Commission have not yet been completed, but we have reason to hope that Canada will give her assistance in framing proper regulations, and that she will contribute to compensation, the object being the settlement of a question in which she is quite as much interested as we in this country. I do not urge the House to accept this Bill on the ground of absolute right or justice, but on the ground that it is a friendly act towards a friendly Power. We cannot but acknowledge that the claims put forward by the United States are founded on absolute justice, and I am sure no Member of this House would contemplate a misunderstanding with the United States without very great regret and sorrow. Unless the Government can obtain satisfactory conditions, we

  1403
  shall certainly not issue the Order in Council.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I think the House will have heard with great satisfaction the statement of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to what appears to be a wise and prudent settlement of a very difficult question. The right hon. Gentleman may be quite sure that from this side of the House he will always receive support for any proposals to settle by arbitration questions of this character. It would be a scandal to our times if a question like that of the seal fishery should result in a settlement by force. Indeed, it seems to be a question which, above all others, lends itself to such a solution as that which is about to be adopted. Therefore I have nothing to say, except that we hear with great satisfaction that that course is to be taken for the settlement of this question with the United States. It is also satisfactory to know that the Dominion of Canada is a consenting party to these arrangements, for that seems to be an absolutely essential condition in this matter. I do not enter into smaller details as to compensation. Those are subordinate questions altogether in the settlement of so large a question as this. I desire to associate myself, as will most Members of this House, with the language the right hon. Gentleman has used in reference to the misfortune which has befallen Canada through what I fear I must call the fatal illness of Sir John Macdonald. I hope the Government will receive support from both sides of the House in carrying out this proposal, which I entirely and heartily support.
  MR. A. STAVELEY HILL: I am very glad indeed to hear for the first time that the Dominion of Canada assents to this proposal, because we should have very great difficulty in accepting it unless we knew that the Canadian Government was also a willing party. I join in the regret that has been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the fatal illness of Sir John Macdonald. As one who has known him for many years, I believe
  1404
  no heavier loss could fall on the great Dominion, of which he is so entirely the embodiment, than that she should lose his wise counsels at the present crisis. And the loss is only less to us who hoped that, after perhaps one or two more busy years, he would take his place in English society, which he was so well qualified to adorn. Two questions suggest themselves as deserving a few words, and the first of these has reference to the question of compensation. I have received from Victoria, British Columbia, a communication in which the consideration of this question is strongly impressed upon me by one of the principal firms engaged in the seal trade, in which they represent that the vessels have been fitted out for the season, that a heavy outlay has been incurred, and that a ruinous loss will be the result if the trade is prohibited without due notice. Of course, this question will have to be considered, and what I would press upon the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs is that he should tell us the mode in which this compensation is to be dealt with. The average catch of each vessel inside the Behring Sea must be considered. I do not quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman as to the diminution in the number of seals. I am aware that Mr. Elliot speaks of the diminution of the number of seals, but I made this the subject of careful inquiry when I was in British Columbia last year; and I believe that at the present time these have passed along the Pacific headlands, and that when the usual time comes round there will be found in the Behring Sea more seals than ever there were before. Last year the catch was small in consequence of the continual fog and bad weather, but I heard on all hands that the number of seals seen in the sea was greater than was ever known. Although the diminution in the number of the seals is the alleged ground for this agreement, I do not believe that it is the real ground. The Pribyloff Islands, in the Behring Sea, have been let by the United States to a commercial company at a larger price than the company can afford to pay unless the supply of sealskins in the market is diminished, and this is the real ground for the proposed suspension of sealing. I do not object to a close time, and I

  1405
  regret that a close time should not apply-outside the Behring Sea. The seals go south about the month of October, but they are about this time travelling north at the rate of about 10 or 12 knots an hour to get on shore on the islands in the Behring Sea, and the slaughter to be prevented is that on the islands. The killing, if it is to be stopped, should be stopped inside and outside the Behring Sea, so that no sealskins should go into the market. I confess I do not quite see how the Pribyloff Islands are to be watched, and I am sure a great deal of watching will be required to prevent the smuggling of sealskins. The seals coming north land in great numbers on the coast of British Columbia and the Queen Charlotte Islands, the cows in calf being ready to bring forth their young. I venture to say here that my words may be placed on record that the wish of all sealers in British Columbia is that there should be a close time for all sealing, and that no seals should be killed between the 1st of October and the 30th of June. The time for killing seals should be the months of July, August, and September. I sincerely trust that the arbitration may result in a satisfactory arrangement.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I most heartily approve the general principle on which Her Majesty's Government have endeavoured to deal with this very difficult question, but there are one or two points on which it would be well to have a little farther information. In the first place, I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Government believe that the assent of three nations only is necessary to these proceedings, the three nations being Great Britain, the United States, and Russia. But when I was in the United States I gathered that another flag had appeared in the Behring Sea—the German Flag— and it would be well for the Government to find out whether there is not another maritime nation equally interested in this matter. I am not quite certain whether I correctly understood the First Lord of the Treasury when he declared the nature of the arbitration which is to be undertaken during the period covered by the close time. There are to be 12 months in which seals are not to be taken, and this period
  1406
  is to be utilised for the arbitration. But did the right hon. Gentleman say that the subject for arbitration was agreed upon, and that that subject was the precautions to be taken to secure the continued existence of the seal? If that is so, I suppose the American Government have withdrawn those very startling claims which seemed to involve a claim for almost exclusive jurisdiction in the great ocean known as Behring Sea. Are we now clear of that demand or claim on the part of the United States, and is the arbitration to be confined to the purely commercial and scientific question of the precautions to be taken for the preservation of the seal? Compensation is, after all, a minor point; but, as usual, it is the purse of Great Britain that is expected to bear the burden. I think our position is rather a hard one. The hon. Member for Staffordshire said that Canada had as much interest in this matter as we have. I should say, on the contrary, that Canada has the whole interest, or, rather, that she shares it with the United States. Our interests in the matter are only those of general peace. I protest altogether against the suggestion made by my hon. and learned Friend as to the basis on which compensation is to be paid. If a claim for compensation is to be considered, I hope that it will be most closely looked into, because I happen to know that many of these vessels who will claim compensation are really American vessels, furnished with American money, and, though to some extent manned by Canadians, almost entirely an American interest. They are merely worked under the British Flag against the claims of the United States Government. The position is rather a hard one for this country. Taking the three parties to these negotiations, the United States have sufficiently protected their interests. They will have no compensation to pay, because they have arranged that no fewer than 7,500 seals shall be taken by their company, thereby rendering compensation unnecessary. The Canadian Government have not, it appears, absolutely agreed to join us in compensation, though I think that they ought to pay a large proportion of whatever is paid. But I also think that when the subject comes to be carefully examined the amount of compensation to which these people are justly

  1407
  entitled will be found to be excessively small. I hope that nothing at all will be paid unless it can be clearly shown that the ownership of the vessel is a British interest. In sitting down, knowing personally Sir John Macdonald, I desire to join in the general expression of opinion from both sides of the House as to the international loss which his death would involve.
  MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: I hope there will be a general agreement to the Second Reading of the Bill. In the general principle I agree, bat there are one or two points upon which I should like to have a little information. The question of compensation my right hon. Friend has alluded to as a minor point, but it is a minor point of very considerable importance. The Papers published do not throw any light upon the question, because they consist almost solely of correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States. I should like to know by whom is this compensation to be paid? The right hon. Gentleman said nothing about that. No doubt Canada will get the chief benefit of the agreement, but in what way is the compensation to be paid? The Bill says nothing about it. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of a Commission, and I presume he meant a Joint Commission of the Home and Canadian Governments. Before we pass from the subject, it would be well, I think, that we should have some light thrown upon the possible obligations which the measure may involve. Perhaps the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs will tell us by whom this compensation is to be paid, and the mode in which it is to be assessed?
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I cordially approve of the Bill, and hope it is a step in the right direction for carrying out the suggestion made by the President of the United States in 1888—a first step in the direction of establishing in the North Pacific, for the sake of the seals, a sort of international administration of all the Powers interested. I should like to hear that when the arbitration takes place, the same course will be pursued as was adopted in the case of the North Sea Fisheries Convention, and that a clause will be agreed to by the nations parties
  1408
  to the Convention, regarding it as an unfriendly act for other Powers sending or permitting their vessels to fish there, and not agreeing to the Convention. The suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend that the Bill should apply to the waters of the Pacific outside Behring Sea does not seem to be important, inasmuch as the seals are already well up towards the hauling-out grounds, and the Bill will not affect seals outside Behring Sea. I should like to know, however, what is to become of the seals killed on the islands belonging to Russia, because that is a very important matter? Are they to be brought within the arrangement? I may be allowed to add my word of deep regret at the severe illness of Sir John Macdonald, and my hope that there may yet be spared the life of one who has done so much for Canada and the Empire.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I acquiesce in the Second Reading of the Bill. I have every confidence in the foreign administration of the Government, and I trust a modus vivendi will be agreed upon, under arbitration, which we shall be glad to see applied to this and other questions. So far as anything in the Bill is concerned, I have not a word to say; but in regard to the question of compensation, I must reserve my liberty of action. What I desired to say upon this point has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain). We are not to consider ourselves bound, in assenting to the Second Reading of this Bill, to accept anything beyond what is contained in the Bill. We are not binding ourselves to accept the principle that compensation shall be paid by the British taxpayer. I have not the least objection to the principle of compensation. It may be a minor matter, but it involves a principle which has been much abused by making the British taxpayer pay to get out of all sorts of difficulties, and especially has this been the case in relation to our self-governing colonies. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham has said, it is the interest of Canada that is chiefly concerned. So far as this country is concerned, we might let the whole thing go. We act, however, in the interest of Canada and in the interest of peace.

  1409
  There was a somewhat equivocal expression used by the First Lord in relation to this question of compensation. He said we accepted the principle, and he hoped that Canada would contribute towards it. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham has rightly put it the other way—that if there is a question of compensation, it should primarily be paid by Canada; and if we should contribute towards it, it is quite another thing to going hat in hand to Canada asking for a Canadian, contribution. Therefore, I protest against the idea that, by reading the Bill a second time, we are assenting to the principle that compensation is to be paid by the British taxpayer.
  MR. BRYCE: We understand from the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury that this Bill is one which is not intended to deal in any way with the general question raised between this country and the United States, but is merely to establish a modus vivendi till next year, and, meantime, inquiries will be made and arbitration proceedings will be going on. I have, therefore, no intention of discussing the general question; but I may say in passing, having read all the Papers, that we on this side of the House have no objection to make to the way in which the Foreign Office has sustained the rights of this country and Canada in this matter. Throughout the negotiations, sometimes very difficult in their nature, the Foreign Office has maintained a clear and firm attitude. The judgment, firmness, and masterly grasp of the facts and principles involved which have been shown by Sir Julian Pauncefote at Washington are entitled to the very highest praise, and are such as everybody who knows his great abilities expected from him. I may say that this question is considered of less practical importance in the United States, than from reading American newspapers, one might suppose. Those who have had personal experience in the States will agree with me that the question of the rights of the United States in Behring Sea is one that presents great difficulty; and a very large number of leading juridical authorities in America —indeed, the majority of them—differ entirely from the line taken by the Secretary of State there, and express
  1410
  their view that his leading contention is wrong. This, no doubt, has had value and weight in calming the attitude of public opinion in America. It should also be remembered that in this matter the contention maintained has been not so much in the interest of Canadian shipowners as of American owners sailing their vessels under the British Flag. I was in British Columbia last autumn, and I did not ascertain that local feeling was very strong on the matter. I was informed there and in the United States that a considerable number of vessels were owned in San Francisco, and even manned by Americans, though sailing under the British Flag. That, however, makes no difference in the right of Canada, and our duty to sustain that right. This question has bearings and applications far beyond those which arise immediately under the Bill; and it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to sustain the claim of Canada to absolute freedom in sailing and fishing and using the North Pacific and Behring Sea in every other way. The Bill has two objects—to prevent any collision that might arise between the crews of our vessels and American vessels or cruisers, and also to preserve the seals and to maintain this important branch of industry. In spite of what has been said by the hon. and. learned Gentleman opposite, no one who has read the evidence bearing on the destruction of seal life can doubt that the case is very serious. Reports not only of the American Treasury agents, but also of Mr. Elliott, the scientific expert, and others, go to show that the number of seals has been very seriously diminished by the methods in which seal-hunting has been carried on; and there is considerable risk of the stock being diminished year by year until the trade disappears, unless a close time is established. The devastation wrought among the seals in earlier times, and when the appliances for the purpose were much less perfect than they are now, induced the Russian Government to absolutely prohibit the slaughter for a time, to enable the stock of seals to recover. I think a strong case might be made out for the intervention of all the Governments concerned. It appears also, from reports we have received, that an unusually large number

  1411
  of the seals killed last season were females, and this is a fact of importance, showing the necessity of instituting a close time. I rather regret that the American Secretary of State should have insisted on the right to kill 7,500 seals on the Pribyloff Islands, because the evidence goes to show there ought to be a complete cessation of killing for a time; but, considering the importance of all the interests involved, Her Majesty's Government were not wrong in accepting this compromise. No doubt during the time the modus vivendi is in force, inquiries will be made which will result in the arrangement of a close time in the future, and I hope the Canadian Authorities will have every opportunity of stating their case. There are one or two questions that arise in relation to the Bill. It has been stated that Canada assents, and of course it would not be possible for us to proceed without the consent of the colony; but I should like to know whether Canada intends to legislate. I should also like to know whether the Order in Council is to be applied by British vessels, or legislative action is also to be taken by Canada; also what is the state of the negotiations with Russia. The right hon. Gentleman said it is intended not to issue an Order in Council until Russia agrees. I suppose the Under Secretary will be able to say how far the negotiations with that country, which had advanced some way in 1888, have progressed; and whether there is reason to believe that Russia will not only join in prohibiting the slaughter in the Behring Sea, but also stop it on her own Islands, because it must be remembered that if the killing of seals is prohibited in one place the price of sealskins will be raised, and so there will be an additional incentive to go on killing them elsewhere. I also hope that the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs will give us some information with regard to the general character of the matters to be referred to arbitration between the United States and ourselves. I wish I could think with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham that the scientific question alone really remains to be settled. But as I understand the Papers, no conclusion has been arrived at as to what is to form the subject of arbitration in the
  1412
  matter of the claims of America generally. Mr. Blaine, I understand, still insists on the claims he has put forward as to the special rights of America in regard to the taking of seals. It is desirable that we should know what are the terms of the arbitration, and on what topics it is to take place; whether the arbitrators have been selected, or when they will be; also whether Her Majesty's Government have yet arrived at a conclusion about a close time. I think we must all feel that the application of the principle of arbitration to this case is a result of which not only we ourselves, but also the people of Canada and of the United States, have every reason to be glad; it is eminently a question for arbitration, because it is not one of disputed facts, but of law. So far as the United States is concerned, it is purely a question of law, and the question as to the preservation of the seals is one of scientific fact. It is just one of those questions to which the principle of arbitration can be applied. I am sure we all hope that the result will be to confirm good feeling between this country and the United States, whom both interest and sentiment induce us to regard as allies with whom we must always desire to be on terms of cordial friendship.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): Her Majesty's Government have every reason to be gratified by the reception which this Bill has met in this House, and especially gratified that there has been a general, agreement to refrain from recurring to those points of difference which have been so prominent during the long negotiations on this question. I will endeavour in a few words to reply to the questions which have been put to the Government, some of which, I think, were anticipated by the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury. The hon. Member for Staffordshire has said that he would be glad to know whether the consent of Canada has actually been given. There is no doubt that the Government of Canada has expressed its consent to the arrangement to which effect is proposed to be given by this Bill, only attaching two conditions—first, that there shall be compensation provided for those who will suffer by it; and, second, that the terms of the arbi-

  1413
  tration shall be accepted by the United States Government. The communications with the Government of Canada have naturally been only semi-official owing to the present lamentable condition of the Premier of the colony, but the House may be quite sure that the interests of the British revenue will be carefully guarded by Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Government must be responsible primarily, but there are conditions which must be considered on behalf of the British taxpayer before any settlement can be made with, regard to compensation, and there are many elements which enter into the question. For instance, there is the question of the actual loss which may be sustained by British subjects, and the extent to which that loss may be recouped by successful fishing elsewhere. Those will be matters for consideration by the Commission.
  MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: May I ask whether there will be a Joint Commission?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: That and other matters of detail have not yet been settled. The hon. Member for Staffordshire has expressed a doubt as to the actual diminution of seals. No doubt there is testimony that the number of seals swimming across the sea has not diminished, but, on the other hand, I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen that nobody can read the expert evidence that has been submitted to us without being convinced that there has been a very large diminution in the number of seals resorting to the Islands. In former years I unfortunately have had reason to become acquainted with the result of the enormous killing of seals in the Southern seas. From Islands to which seals used to resort in large numbers in years gone by they have now entirely disappeared, and we feel that, while we must be desirous to remove causes of international difficulty, we can not be insensible either to the damage done to an important article of commerce or to the enormous inhumanity of wholesale and unrestricted destruction of seal life. I will not notice particularly what the hon. Member for Staffordshire said as to the sinister motives that might be ascribed to the consent of the American Government. The American Government will lose fully
  1414
  £100,000 in the present year by the diminution of the take, as they have a lien of 10 dollars on every sealskin. No doubt, as has been suggested, it would be very desirable to have a more extensive close time, and that it should extend to the coast of British Columbia. That will, I think, in all probability, be one of the matters submitted to arbitration. The arbitrators will not only have to do with the legal rights under Treaty of this country and Canada and the United States, but also with the measures desirable to be taken for the preservation of seal life. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham has reminded us that another flag has appeared in the Behring Sea. That is a matter which will receive careful examination, and the consent of the German Government will, if necessary, be invited. The hon. Member for Aberdeen has asked how far negotiations with Russia have gone. Overtures have been made to the Russian Government; the reply has not yet been received; but there is good reason to suppose that the overtures will be favourably received and the consent of Russia obtained. In former years the Russian Government itself found it necessary on three occasions to stop the taking of seals altogether on the shores of the Behring Sea, on account of the enormous diminution of the seals caused by wholesale destruction; and we may fairly expect that the Russian Government will bear this fact in mind. With regard to the manner in which compensation is to be paid, I must reserve to the Government the consideration of those details, which must be considered in connection with the Order in Council. The hon. Member for Aberdeen justly recognised that the Bill is a temporary expedient to meet the mischievous effects of recent proceedings, pending the solution of the larger question involved. It is true that Her Majesty's Government assented with reluctance to the proposal of the American Government that the American sealers should take 7,500 seals in the present year. That, with some other matters of detail, we shall overlook. It is better that we should overlook some matters which We might wish different rather than imperil the success of a measure which will tend to remove the international difficulty and settle it for

  1415
  all time on satisfactory grounds. Undoubtedly the degree of right that passed from Russia to the United States will be a matter for consideration by the arbitrators.
  MR. A. STAVELEY HILL: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman means that the matter involved in the action now pending before the Supreme Court of the United States will come before the arbitrators?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The case of the H. P. Sayward involves a question of law and has been instituted by a private individual. I draw a clear distinction between the international question and the question of municipal law which is involved in the seizure of the vessel in the case mentioned. The House must not understand that any official decision has been arrived at in respect to the matters to be referred to arbitration. The question is still the subject of correspondence between the two Governments, but they have been steadily approaching a point of agreement, and I believe that the reply that is about to be addressed to the United States Government will bring the two Governments so close together that a harmonious settlement of the matter at issue will be arrived at.
  CAPTAIN BETHELL: I hope that, whatever matters are submitted to arbitration, the interests of this country will be properly safeguarded. I trust that those matters in regard to which Lord Salisbury, in various despatches, seems to have had no doubt as to the rights of this country will not be submitted to arbitration. I doubt if they can be submitted to arbitration in the same sense as the question of a close time for seals can be submitted to arbitration. I think the statement of the right hon. Gentleman would have been more satisfactory if he had been able to say to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and the Member for Aberdeen that the extraordinary claims of the United States will not be submitted to arbitration.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I would assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the interests of this country will be most carefully safeguarded in the terms of the submission to arbitration to which the Government has agreed. No claims which are believed to be untenable will
  1416
  be admitted. I will only ask the House now to leave the management of these difficult negotiations in the hands of those whose duty it is to conduct them.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

  PURCHASE OF LAND AND CONGESTED DISTRICTS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 342.)

    CONSIDERATION.
    As amended, considered.
    New Clause—
    (Payment by purchaser of sinking fund payments in guaranteed land stock).
    Where a person liable to pay a purchase annuity either—

    (a) redeems the annuity or any part thereof; or

    (b) pays on a gale day or within fourteen days thereafter the instalment due on that gale day;

    the payment of the redemption money or, as the case may be, of one-fourth of the instalment may be discharged by the prescribed transfer to the National Debt Commissioners of an equal nominal amount of guaranteed land stock, and such transfer may be made through the medium of a post office savings bank,)—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
    MR. KNOX: This clause is intended to carry out a suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Kilkenny. As far as the first part of it is concerned, it does carry out my hon. Friend's suggestion, and will confer very considerable benefit on, at any rate, the larger of the purchasers under the Act, but I think the latter part of the clause, respecting transfer through the Post Office Savings Bank, requires some amendment. I have carefully looked at the Savings Bank Act of 1880, which is the only Act under which Government Stock can be transferred through the medium of the Post Office, and that only gives power to transfer to a person who has invested through the Post Office Savings Bank.
    MR. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland say whether the construction placed on the clause by my hon. and learned Friend is correct? The proposal of my hon. Friend the

    1417
    Member for South Kilkenny was that the person who was liable for the payment of the annuity should, instead of paying the amount in cash, be permitted to purchase Land Stock.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I confess I see nothing in the clause which does not carry out the spirit of the proposal of the hon. Member for Kilkenny.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a second time.
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the Clause, to add the words "and rules providing for such transfer through such medium may be made by the Treasury with the consent of the Postmaster General in the same manner that rules may be made under 'The Savings Bank Act, 1880,' or any Act amending the same."—(Mr. Knox.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. GOSCHEN: I would suggest that if you put in the words "in the prescribed manner" it would answer the hon. Member's intentions. We quite appreciate the object of the Amendment.
    MR. KNOX: The only difficulty I have in accepting that suggestion is that the Rules made under the Savings Bank Act of 1880 are made by the Treasury with the consent of the Postmaster General. The Postmaster General would not be consulted under the right hon. Gentleman's proposal.
    MR GOSCHEN: We will arrange that he shall be consulted.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, at the end of the Clause, after "bank," to insert" in the prescribed manner."—(Mr. Goschen.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    New Clause—
    (Power to issue two-and-a-half per cent. guaranteed land stock.)
    "(1.) If at any time after guaranteed land stock to a nominal amount of not less than ten million pounds has been issued, the Treasury are of opinion, having regard to the average market price of the said stock for the period, not less than twelve months, then immediately preceding, that the market price of a like stock, but bearing dividends at the rate only of two pounds ten shillings per cent. per annum on the nominal amount of the capital, would
    1418
    be one hundred pounds cash for an equal nominal amount of stock, they shall cause notice to be given that after the date specified in the notice the following provisions will apply, and the same shall apply accordingly; that is to say,—

    (a.) The guaranteed land stock issued for advances under any agreement made subsequently to the said date shall yield dividends at the rate of only two pounds ten shillings per cent. per annum on the nominal amount of the capital;

    (b.) The annual sinking fund payment for stock issued for such advances shall be at the rate of one pound two shillings per cent. on the nominal amount of the capital;

    (c.) The county percentage shall continue to be at the rate of five shillings per cent. per annum on such advance;

    (d.) The purchase annuity for the repayment of any such advance shall be at the rate of three pounds seventeen shillings percent. instead of four pounds per cent. per annum on the advance;

    (e.) The provisions of this Act with respect to guaranteed stock, and the dividends thereon, and the sinking fund payments for the same, shall apply to stock issued for such advance, with the substitution of the last mentioned amount of dividends and sinking fund payments for those mentioned in such provisions," —(The Chancellor of the Exchequer,)

    —brought up, and read the first and second time.
    MR. SEXTON: If the Treasury find, in the course of time, that they can effect a saving of a quarter per cent., the question I have to ask the right hon. Gentleman is, why that saving should not go to the relief of the tenant purchaser? I am at a loss to understand why the Sinking Fund should be put at £1 2s., and I, therefore, move to strike out 2s.
    Amendment proposed, in line 16, to leave out the words "two shillings."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'two shillings' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. GOSCHEN: The Sinking Fund is put at £1 2s., because it must be rather larger in the case of a 2½ per cent. Stock than when you establish a Sinking Fund to redeem a 2¾ per cent. Stock.
    MR. SEXTON: If the Sinking Fund is wholly re-invested in Land Stock, I wish to know why there should be such a large addition as 2s.?
    MR. GOSCHEN: I can only inform the hon. Member that the calculation has been made, and £1 2s. is found to

    1419
    be necessary. I put forward the explanation for what it is worth.
    MR. SEXTON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. KNOX: I beg to move, in line 24, page 30, after the word "thereon," to insert the words, "and the redemption of the annuity." I do so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be enabled to say how the redemption of the annuity would be arranged under this provision.
    Amendment proposed, in line 24, after the word "thereon," to insert the words "and the redemption of the annuity."—(Mr. Knox.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GOSCHEN: I do not think the words are necessary, the object of the hon. Member being already met by the clause.
    MR. KNOX: I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause added.
    New Clause—
    (Reference to Privy Council of objections to Lord Lieutenant's decision.)
    "(1.) Not less than one month before the decision of the Lord Lieutenant as to the share in any fund or sum or the rights or burdens of any county, local authority, or person in respect of payments out of the Guarantee Fund or the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account is finally given, notice of the proposed decision shall be published in the Dublin Gazette, and if during such month any authority or person pecuniarily interested sends to the Lord Lieutenant an objection to the proposed decision, in writing, stating the reasons for the same, then such objection and reasons shall be referred to the Privy Council, and after hearing the objector and any other authority or person, if such objector, authority, or person appears to the Privy Council to be pecuniarily interested and desires to be heard, the Privy Council shall advise the Lord Lieutenant thereon, and the decision of the Lord Lieutenant shall be suspended until the advice is given, and shall be in accordance with such advice.
    (2.) The Privy Council may order costs to be paid by or to the objector or by or to any authority or person appearing.
    (3.) This section shall apply, with the necessary modifications, to a declaration by the Lord Lieutenant as to the proportion between the total number of holdings and those of a rateable value exceeding fifty pounds, and in that case any ten persons whose position (whether as vendors or purchasers) as respects advances under this Act may be affected by
    1420
    the declaration, shall be deemed to be pecuniarily interested,"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
    MR. M. HEALY: I think it would be as well to drop Sub-section 2 altogether out of the clause, because I do not know any means by which the Privy Council can enforce an order made for costs. In the Court of Chancery there is a power of attachment, but the Privy Council has no such power; and as, therefore, there are no means of enforcing its order, the sub-section would be a nullity. As to "any authority or person appearing," I take it that the only competent "authority" is the Grand Jury, and supposing the Grand Jury appeared in any case, and the Privy Council mulcted them in costs, the Grand Jury has no power to pay such costs, because it has no legal jurisdiction to levy or apportion such costs on the county in which it acts. Of course, the case provided for is of such a nature that it is almost impossible it could be made the means of vexatious litigation. No one would be likely to appear before the Privy Council without real ground for action. This being so, it is only the Public Authority which could be expected to appear, and I cannot think that the Government mean this clause to apply to any action taken by the Grand Jury.
    MR. KNOX: I should like to point out that, inasmuch as the Lord Lieutenant in Council is assumed to be just the same as the Lord Lieutenant without his Council, the reference made by this clause to the Privy Council is practically so much waste paper. It would merely give objectors the right of arguing before a body not necessarily more learned in legal matters than the Lord Lieutenant himself, and, therefore, it would be of no practical advantage. Another point is that the clause does not make it clear that the Crown has any right to appear at all. This is an important point. The Crown can obviously not have any pecuniary interest in appearing before the Privy Council, and, as I understand it, it is necessary that some such interest should exist in order to justify such appearance; but the Lord

    1421
    Lieutenant, who has made an order, might desire to appear to sustain his decision, and, as I have said, the clause seems to give him no such right. Moreover, costs could never be given against the Crown. It would only be in the case of a dispute between two authorities that costs could be given, and as the clause would be practically inoperative as regards any other party, the point I have ventured to submit is, I would respectfully submit, worthy the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. There is another point I will venture to bring under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. Sub-section 3 of Clause 5 provides that the declaration of the Lord Lieutenant is not to come into force in certain cases without further proceedings and without sometimes being-laid before Parliament, whereas under this section the decision of the Lord Lieutenant is final. It ought to be made clear that the sub-section is not intended to make a declaration by the Lord Lieutenant, under Section 7, binding.
    MR. MACARTNEY: If the sub-section is to be retained it will be necessary to put in distinct words authorising the Grand Jury to make a levy. At present there is no power for them to make a levy except for a specific purpose. But I rather agree that the sub-section is unnecessary. I do not think there will be many frivolous objections to the declaration of the Lord Lieutenant: the costs which will have to be borne by the objectors will prevent that. I might, however, suggest that the number of objectors might be reduced from ten to five, as in certain districts there might not be ten persons affected by the declaration under Clause 7.
    MR. SEXTON: It is not possible that such a case should arise. There never could be fewer than ten persons affected. As to the question of costs, if the objectors are successful, we ought to know from whom they will be able to recover their costs. I think the clause would be better if the provision as to costs were omitted, for you are providing against an imaginary danger. The opening words of the clause are very awkward, and open to the observations made upon them by my hon. Friend. It is provided that. "not less than one month before the decision of the Lord
    1422
    Lieutenant," &c., &c. But that decision may not be given for six months, and therefore to say the Lord Lieutenant is to give one month's notice is very awkward. Again, the publication of his intention to make a declaration in the Dublin Gazette is not sufficient. That Gazette only circulates among officials, mainly in the City of Dublin. I think the advertisement should also appear in at least one newspaper circulating in the county concerned. Again, I object to the word "pecuniarily" as introduced into this clause. The Privy Council are to consider the objections of persons pecuniarily interested. Is it not plain that in a matter of an appeal as to the share of a county in the Guarantee Fund an objector's pecuniary interest might only be contingent and remote? It would be very desirable that he should be heard, but the insertion of this word would exclude him in all probability.
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: I join in the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consent to the omission of this Sub-section 2, and on these grounds: The Crown on all official Motions is represented by the Attorney General or Solicitor General, who has a junior. High fees are paid to these counsel, and only those who have had personal or professional experience know how unfairly the subject is treated in these matters. His own expenses may be small; but if he prove to be in the wrong, he has to pay high fees to the Crown counsel. The liability to pay his own costs will deter a man from making-frivolous objections; but if this subsection stand, costs will follow the event in all cases.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I will endeavour to deal briefly with the rather numerous, but not very far-reaching, points raised in the course of the attack on this subsection. On the whole, I am disposed to adhere to the sub-section, for I think that in the clause, as originally drawn, the discretion vested in the Lord Lieutenant was sufficient in itself. In Committee, however, it was argued that an appeal ought to be given. The Government assented to that, and I think, at all events, it should be hedged round with provisions such as these. I believe

    1423
    the methods we have adopted are the ordinary methods. I do not think that there is any likelihood that the power given to the Privy Council will be abused in the case of the poorer or weaker suitors. We are told that this sub-section will practically be of no effect, as the only authority likely to appear before the Privy Council will be the Grand Jury, who can raise a rate to meet the costs. I think it very unlikely that Grand Juries will make frivolous applications. Such applications, if made at all—and I hope none will be made—will come from irresponsible persons in a county who may take it into their heads that they are injured by the declaration. A Grand Jury, appearing solemnly before the Privy Council, are not likely to do so on frivolous grounds.
    MR. M. HEALY: But costs may be given against the county.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Practically there will be no costs. If there are, I am informed it will be a statutory debt, such as can be recovered.
    MR. M. HEALY: In what way—by action?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; by action. The hon. Member for Cavan has pointed out that there is no power given to the Crown to appear. That may be met by introducing, in line 42, the words "or counsel on behalf of the Crown." With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for West Belfast, it is true that the Dublin Gazette has not much circulation outside Dublin, but that objection may be met by inserting after the word "Gazette," "and some newspaper circulating in the county." That will meet his views and the views of hon. Members below the Gangway on this side of the House. The hon. Member for Cavan appears to think that, as the clause is at present drawn, the Privy Council referred to is the constituted body. But if that were so, it would make the clause little more than a fiction. What is intended is the Privy Council as a Judicial Body, and if the clause does not make that clear, it must be altered.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I think the explanations of the Chief Secretary are tolerably satisfactory, but his action is not. Will he embody his words in an Amendment to be introduced either now or in another
    1424
    place? He said that costs would practically only be given when the objection is frivolous, but that is not provided for in the clause.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We will put it in.
    COLONEL NOLAN: Then I shall be satisfied. I may say I should prefer these matters to be dealt with by the Lord Lieutenant instead of the Privy Council, for the expense would be considerably less.
    COLONEL WARING: However soberly and solemnly a Grand Jury may proceed in the matter, I fear it will have to pay its own costs. There is nothing in the section to relieve them of that.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a second time.
    Amendment proposed, in line 6, after the word "Gazette," to insert "and at least one newspaper circulating in the county concerned."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. SEXTON: Those words meet my point.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. SEXTON: At the end of line 6 I wish to leave out the word "pecuniarily." Having regard to the second sub-section it is unlikely that any person will venture before the Privy Council unless he has a real and substantial interest in the matter. But if the word "pecuniarily" is retained he would be precluded from appearing if his money interest were only of a remote or contingent character. He might, for instance, intend to be a purchaser of the Stock to be allotted to his county, but a tribunal of lawyers would hold perhaps that that did not constitute a pecuniary interest. Considering the strong protection against frivolous applications I think the clause might leave this as a personal interest instead of insisting on its being a pecuniary interest.
    Amendment proposed, in line 6, to leave out the word "pecuniarily."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    COLONEL WARING: I would suggest that the word be omitted. I can see no objection.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I agree.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. M. HEALY: I would suggest that words should be inserted providing that the objections should be made in the prescribed form.
    Amendment proposed, in line 7, after the word "objection," to insert the words "in the prescribed form."—(Mr. M. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): That would necessitate the drawing up of Treasury rules. I do not think that would be desirable; it would only lead to considerable trouble. We had better leave the clause as it stands, as under it a person objecting has merely to send his objections in in writing.
    MR. KNOX: Difficulty may arise from insisting on the objections being sent in when notice of intention to object is given. In complicated cases important reasons for objecting might only occur to counsel after the litigation has actually been commenced, and if the Privy Council are only to entertain such reasons as may be inserted in the first application, you may unwittingly do an injustice. I venture to think some Amendment is necessary in that respect.
    MR. MADDEN: I do not think any such danger is likely to arise; an objector having once stated sufficient reasons for being heard before the Privy Council, will be able to lay his whole case before that tribunal.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Amendment proposed, in line 9, to leave out the words "and reasons."— (Mr. Knox.)
    Agreed to.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: Now I come to the question of the constitution of the Privy Council. That Body consists partly of Judges of the Superior Court and partly of country gentlemen, and when sitting there are usually present three or four country gentleman and five or six Judges. The laymen are usually landlords without legal knowledge, and they
    1426
    are indirectly concerned in questions of this sort. I would suggest that matters distinctly technical should only come before members of the Council who are Judges of the Supreme Court. There is no such thing as a Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Ireland: that is a blessing reserved for England. We know, however, that the judicial functions of the Council have largely increased of late years, and I think there are good reasons for referring these matters to a Committee of Judges.
    Amendment proposed, in line 9, after the word "to," to insert the words "a Committee of the Judges of the Supreme Court who are members of."—(Mr. M. J. Kenny.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Without arguing against the Amendment in the abstract, I may say I do not think that this is a proper subject on which to start a precedent of a novel character. The questions to be referred are not of a legal character, and some slight admixture of the lay mind might improve the tribunal. Neither can the questions be of a kind to raise a conflict between landlords and tenants, for their interests in the matter would be identical.
    MR. KNOX: But the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the Privy Council in its judicial capacity a little while ago.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should have said its legal capacity.
    MR. KNOX: The distinction is a somewhat narrow one. I think it may fairly be argued that the words as they stand in the clause refer to the Privy Council, not in its legal capacity but its consultative aspect. I think, at any rate, an Amendment should be inserted, making it clear in what capacity the Privy Council is to act.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: It seems to me we ought to have this matter made clear. The words "Privy Council" are very often used as a mere form, but I understand from the Chief Secretary that that is not what is meant here. In that case there ought to be some words showing that the "Privy Council" here means something different from the

    1427
    ordinary use of the words "Privy Council" in Acts referring to Ireland. It is evident there ought to be a decision here, and therefore there ought to be some words showing that the Privy Council are rather to act in a special capacity in this respect. Also, I think, it is rather necessary you should say that the acts of the Privy Council should be confined to judicial acts, because it is quite plain some members of the Privy Council may have very strong influence in particular counties. Of course they would not give way to any particular bias if they were made to understand they were acting in a judicial capacity. I cannot help thinking the demand that there should be some limitation put upon the words "Privy Council" is a reasonable and necessary one.
    MR. MADDEN: The words in the clause as it stands would import that the assent of the Privy Council was not merely formal, but that they were to decide the matter judicially.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: It seems to me that the questions to be decided will mainly be questions of fact, and I do not see why country gentlemen like the O'Conor Don are not as competent to settle questions of fact as any legal gentlemen in Ireland. The Privy Council hold inquiries under the Light Railways and Tramways Act in respect to which there are questions of fact and sometimes questions of law to be decided. No Motion has been made to reserve such questions for lawyers.
    MR. SEXTON: I do not think the hon. Member appreciates the scope of the functions the Privy Councillors will have to discharge. They will have to deal with questions of fact and of law. A question of law will take the form of an interpretation of the Land Purchase Act. I would like to see the O'Conor Don tackling this Act, and giving an interpretation of it.
    MR. MACARTNEY: As I understand, the practice is that Privy Councillors only attend a meeting when they are specially summoned. If a lay Member is summoned when a law question is to be decided he will be some gentleman who is peculiarly fitted to aid the legal members in the discussion.
    MR. M. HEALY: It is the case that a large section of the Privy Councillors do not attend the meetings of the Council unless summoned; but, on the other hand, a number of lay members—the O'Conor Don and noble Lords and Commoners—not remotely connected with politics, turn up when judicial questions are to be decided. The complaint of myself and friends is that the clause does not follow any of the statutory precedents on the subject. Notwithstanding what the hon. Member for South Tyrone has said, it appears to me that trained lawyers would be better men to whom to entrust questions raised under this section than even such intelligent and intellectual laymen as The O'Conor Don. We all agree that this Bill is of a largely technical and complicated character, and that even many lawyers will have difficulty in construing it.
    MR. COURTNEY: I think it is quite evident that the main questions raised will be questions of fact, which men like Privy Councillors will be well able to determine.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Other Amendments made.
    MR. SEXTON: Sub-section (2) reads—
    "The Privy Council may order costs to be paid by or to the objector or by or to any authority or person appearing."
    I think it is advisable that people should know in advance what they may be required to pay by way of costs, and therefore, I propose to insert after costs "on the prescribed scale."
    Amendment proposed, in line 15, after the word "costs," to insert the words, "on the prescribed scale."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. MADDEN: The objection to that would be that the costs would have to be prescribed by the Treasury.
    MR. SEXTON: The proceedings under the clause would generally be by analogy. What would be fair costs in one case would probably be fair costs in another. There would be no objection to fixing a scale which would apply to all cases.
    MR. MADDEN: I shall be very glad to consider the point before the Bill reaches another place.
    MR. M. HEALY: Surely it would be improper to give the Privy Council unlimited power in respect to the amount to be paid by way of costs.
    MR. MADDEN: I would have no objection to insert the words "on a scale to be settled by the Lord Chancellor," if that would meet the views of hon. Gentlemen.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in line 15, after "costs" to insert "on a scale to be settled by the Lord Chancellor."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. M. HEALY: The Chief Secretary has told us that the order for costs made under this section has to be enforced by suit—that the party requiring costs has to sue. If costs are awarded to a Grand Jury how can they, being a Corporate Body, sue? On the other hand, suppose costs are given against a Grand Jury how can they be sued?
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, in line 16, to leave out the words "authority or."—(Mr. M. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    COLONEL WARING: Could my right hon. and learned Friend devise any means by which the Grand Jury could protect themselves?
    MR. MADDEN: This really raises a question of Grand Jury law outside the present Bill. It so happens that a Grand Juror may be one of the persons interested in this clause, but generally speaking wherever Grand Juries are involved in litigation of any kind this difficulty comes in, unless provided for by special Statutes.
    MR. MACARTNEY: I want to point out that if some such words are not inserted in this clause, it is perfectly obvious that a Grand Jury will never take any steps whatever under this clause. The Grand Jury Act distinctly empowers Grand Juries to make levies
    1430
    for the purposes of the Act. There are also in the Act special clauses empowering them to levy.
    MR. MADDEN: As I understand the point of this discussion, it is that Grand Juries are more likely to be involved in this species of litigation than others. I am bound to say that is reasonable, and I will undertake to have a clause moved on the subject.
    MR. KNOX: Have the Poor Law Boards power to incur expenses under this clause? I do not know that they have, and I think they should have that power. The clause to be inserted should apply, not merely to Grand Juries, but to any other authority.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in line 16, at end of Sub-section 2, to add "or cited to appear."—(Mr. M. J. Kenny.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. MADDEN: I do not think the Amendment is necessary.
    MR. M. HEALY: What we want to know is, who is it intended should pay the costs? If it is contemplated that the costs should be paid by the Crown, it appears to me that some such words as my hon. Friend suggests would be necessary, because, although the Crown are responsible for the order, they may not appear in support of it.
    MR. MADDEN: I will not object to the Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, at the end of the last Amendment, to insert the words "or by the Treasury."—(Mr. Knox.)
    MR. MADDEN: I never saw words of that kind inserted in an Act of Parliament.
    MR. M. HEALY: But the Act would not bind the Crown unless the Crown was expressly mentioned.
    MR. MADDEN: I could not accept the Amendment in that form. It might, however, be made to run "including the Crown."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment agreed to: To insert after the words last inserted "including the Crown."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the last Amendment, to insert the words "if they consider the objection or appearance, as the case may be, to be frivolous or unwarrantable."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. KNOX: May I suggest to the right, hon. Gentleman that he should leave out the words "or appearance." I do not quite understand what a frivolous appearance may be. So far as I can see on an objection costs would rarely be given against the Crown, and we can hardly imagine the Privy Council holding the appearance of the Crown to be frivolous. As the Crown would give the cause for the appearance I consider the Crown should be liable for costs if the order should be changed by the Lord Lieutenant on further consideration.
    MR. SEXTON: If the objection is made good the appearance is not frivolous, and if the objection is found frivolous that ought to be sufficient.
    MR. MADDEN: Perhaps the best course will be to give this a little further consideration. The intention is quite understood, I think, that a person is to pay costs if his objection is frivolous or his appearance in the case unreasonable, and I will undertake to have the words considered.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: The right hon. Gentleman might use the word "unreasonable."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    (8.33.) Amendment proposed, in line 22, to leave out the word "pecuniarily."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'pecuniarily' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. COURTNEY: It appears to me that the effect of leaving out this word would leave the clause very much as it was at starting. You say that a person pecuniarily interested shall have a right to appear; and in the absence of that interest there is no right to appear—there is no indirect right of appearance; but this Amendment would change the effect of the former part of the clause.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, added.(8.36.)
    (9.12.) Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    New Clause—
    (Returns.)
    Periodical Returns shall be made by the Land Commission at the prescribed times, and forthwith laid before Parliament, and shall contain, with respect to every county, the precribed particulars, including the particulars hereinafter mentioned, that is to say:—

    (a.) Returns of advances under this Act, specifying—

    (i.) the situation, size, rateable value, and rent (judicial or non-judicial) of each holding for the purchase of which an advance has been made;

    (ii.) the vendor and purchaser thereof; and

    (iii.) the amount of the purchase money, advance, and guarantee deposit;

    (b.) Returns specifying the like particulars as above mentioned with respect to cases (if any) in which default has been made in the payment of purchase annuities, and specifying, further, the amount of instalments paid and in default respectively, and the proceedings taken for the recovery of the instalments in default;

    (c.) Returns specifying—

    (i) the amount (if any) which has been paid out of the Guarantee Fund to the Land Purchase Account or to the Consolidated Fund;

    (ii.) the amount which has been applied under this Act towards the cost of providing labourers' cottages;

    (iii.) the presentments (if any) which have been made under this Act; and

    (iv.) the regulations and decisions which have been made by the Lord Lieutenant with respect to the share of any county, local authority, or person in any fund or sum dealt with under this Act,—(Mr. A. J. Balfour,)

    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will accept the Amendment which stands on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottinghamshire (Mr. J. E. Ellis), which is to the effect that the Returns should be made up to the end of the months of March, June, September, and December in each year, and not "periodically," as proposed in the clause? It would be better that the clause should not be allowed to remain in its present vague form.
    MR. SEXTON: The terms in the Bill should not be allowed to remain so elastic as to render the Returns of no practical value. It seems to me that the word "periodical," as contained in the clause, is inadmissible. When we were discussing Clause 1 the Government had not discovered the difficulty of the clause that deals with the constitution and tenure of the Land Commissioners. In the conflict which took place in Committee on the question, the Government adhered to the determination expressed by the clause that the Land Commissioners shall in future not be public servants in the ordinary sense, but shall be removable only on an Address from both Houses of Parliament, and shall, as it were, draw their salaries over the heads of the House of Commons from the Consolidated Fund. It is, therefore, more necessary than ever that details of the proceedings of the Commissioners shall be given by them at a time dictated by Parliament in the Bill. For anything they may do or may leave undone hereafter, according to their tenure, this House, as apart from the other House, will have no jurisdiction over them. Consequently, I think it necessary that we should here specify beyond any doubt or question, at what periods these important Returns should be submitted. I suppose we shall be able to consider presently what form the Amendment should take. I presume that in the case of first-class Returns they should be made by the Land Commission quarterly, and that in the case of other Returns under sub-heads, they should be half-yearly. In regard to the Returns under sub-head "b."—
    "Returns specifying the like particulars, as above mentioned, with respect to cases (if any) in which default has been made in the payment of purchase annuities, and specifying further, the amount of instalments paid and in default respectively, and the proceedings taken for the recovery of the instalments in default"—
    when a farm is sold subject to an annuity I suppose the whole balance becomes a sum recoverable on default of payment of instalments. If you cannot recover from the tenant you sell his farm. If you do it subject to a reduced annuity, then the difference between the old instalment and the new is a loss to the State. If you sell subject to no annuity, on default the differ
    1434
    ence between the sum unredeemed and the amount received for the farm will be a loss to the State. It would be desirable that such cases should appear on the Returns. The clause contemplates only the failure to pay instalments. It is most important that these facts should be known, because the loss which will fall on a locality by the failure to pay an instalment will be light and can be easily made good, but the loss through ten or a dozen emergency men, say, throwing up their farms in order to go to America, would be heavy. It is extremely important that we should have an intelligent knowledge of these matters, even though we cannot control the Commissioners.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I agree that every particular necessary to judge of the working of the Act should be provided in the Returns. I agree, also, it will not do to leave the determination of the precise form or period of these Returns to the Land Commission, who are not subject to the control of Parliament. But I also think it would be inconvenient too rigidly to specify the exact dates at which these Returns should be given. I do not think hon. Gentlemen opposite have precisely realised the effect of the word "prescribed." The clause says—
    "Periodical Returns shall be made by the Land Commission at the prescribed times, and forthwith laid before Parliament."
    Now, hon. Members have spoken as if "prescribed" in the clause meant "prescribed by the Land Commission," which so far as discussions in Supply in this House are concerned, is described as irresponsible. That is not so. "Prescribed" means prescribed by the Treasury, and the House will readily see that, whatever may be the case with the Land Commission, the Treasury are always subject to the control of this House, and will certainly prescribe precisely the kind of information which the House desires to be possessed of. I think the word "prescribed" does really give Parliament all the control it desires.
    MR. KEAY: I wish to direct the attention of the Government to what is probably an unintentional omission on their part under Sub-head

    1435
    C, which states that Returns will be furnished, specifying the amounts, if any, repaid by the Guarantee Fund to the Land Purchase Account or to the Consolidated Fund. That sub-head omits what is, in my judgment, a major particular which ought to be furnished in any such Return, namely, the amount that has been advanced out of the Consolidated Fund. The Bill provides by three different clauses a certain method by which these matters shall be arranged. The first in point of time is in Clause 2, whereby, the Land Commission having established a Land Purchase Account, there shall be paid into that Account the dividends and Sinking Fund payments for the whole of the advances. The second step is that if the tenant purchaser should not pay the annuities, the Consolidated Fund has to pay them instead. Then it is provided by Sub-section 3 of Clause 1 that the Guarantee Fund shall re-imburse the Consolidated Fund the amounts advanced. I want to point out that clearly the most important of the things to be recorded in any Return, such as is provided for in Sub-head C, is the advances out of the Consolidated Fund, and not merely the amounts repaid to it. If the clause remains as it stands, and, say, £1,000,000 has been advanced out of the Consolidated Fund to make good defaults, no notification of that fact will take place; whilst if the Guarantee Fund repays to the Consolidated Fund, say, £10,000 or £100,000, the Return will show the re-payment without indicating that nearly £1,000,000 is still owing to the Consolidated Fund. I would suggest the insertion, after "been," in line 18, of the words "Paid out of the Consolidated Fund or." The Amendment is so obviously necessary that I have no doubt the Government will signify their assent, and render my formally moving it unnecessary.
    Mr. M. HEALY: I want to ask why the learned Attorney General for Ireland has not included in the third portion of this Return the orders made by the Lord Lieutenant respecting the division in each county between large and small tenants. That appears to me to be quite as important as the other sub-heads. I hope the Government will
    1436
    also add to Sub-section (b) the date of the advance.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a second time.
    MR. SEXTON: I move to insert after "prescribed time," the words "in each year." I, of course, admit the force of the right hon. Gentleman's contention that the Treasury is the servant of the House, but the best servant is none the worse for a clear indication of the master's will, and I think we should provide that Returns should be made within periods of not less than a year.
    Amendment proposed, in line 2, after "time," to insert "in each year."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Some of the particulars cannot be given each year, but I have no objection to the Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Another Amendment made, in line 11, after "deposit" to insert—
    "For particulars of any order made under Section 12 of this Act in relation to such holding, and of the enforcement thereof."—(Mr. Knox.)
    Another Amendment made, in line 14, after "further," to add "the date of the advance."—(Mr. M. Healy.)
    Another Amendment made, in line 15, to omit "and," and insert "the amount of loss on the occasion of the sale of any holding."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    MR. KEAY: Not having been fortunate enough to get any indication of opinion from the Government with regard to the suggestion which I made a short time ago about adding to the Return the advances made out of the Consolidated Fund, I beg to move, in line 18, after the word "been," to insert "paid out of the Consolidated Fund or." I need not repeat the arguments I have already adduced. Suffice it to say that a considerable point has been put forward which has not been replied to from the Treasury Bench. As it stands, subhead "c" provides that while certain Returns which, no doubt, are very useful so far as they go, are to be provided,

    1437
    yet this important Return which I have now moved for is not to be made. The condition of things which would arise would be this: that there might have been £1,000,000 advanced from the Consolidated Fund, and none of it repaid at all, in which case the Returns would show nothing. If a small sum of, say, £10,000 had been repaid, the Consolidated Fund would stand £990,000 out of pocket, but the House and the public would know nothing about it. I hold that the Return for which I ask would be much more important than the other Returns provided for, and, on all grounds of common sense and fairness, I appeal to the Government to accept my Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in line 18, after the word "been," to insert the words "paid out of the Consolidated Fund or."—(Mr. Keay.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sorry the hon. Member should have thought it necessary to repeat the oration he made some time ago, especially as his Amendment is one we have no difficulty in accepting.
    MR. MADDEN: The words should appear in Sub-head (I.) "the amount of money (if any) temporarily advanced out of the Consolidated Fund." If the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment I will move the addition of those words.
    MR. KEAY: That will exactly meet my view.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made, in line 18, insert "the amount of money (if any) which has been temporarily advanced out of the Consolidated Fund, and."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    Another Amendment made, at end of of Sub-head 4, to add—
    "And with respect to the proportion in which advances are to be made in the county as between holdings, the rent of which, exceeds £50, and other holdings."—(Mr. M. Healy.)
    Another Amendment made,
    To insert, after Sub-head v., "the amounts paid out of the purchaser's insurance money, under Section 5, Sub-section 4, of this Act,
    1438
    and the amounts paid out of the reserve fund, and repaid to such fund under Section 5,Subsection 5 and 6 of this Act."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Clause, as amended, added.
    COLONEL WARING: I beg to move the clause which I have placed upon the Paper. This is a proposal which has had support from more than one quarter of the House. Unfortunately, there is no Patent Office in which to register ideas of this kind. It has been assumed that I have adopted the idea of the senior Member for Cork, but I can assure the House that this has been an opinion I have expressed long before this proposition was made by him. The proposal is that a tenant who wishes to fine down his rent should be able to take a perpetual lease at a sum not exceeding what the Land Commission would consider a fair rent. In this I simply propose to renew a section in the Act of 1881. I think great advantages would accrue from the adoption of the proposal. So far as the State is concerned, it is likely that a loan amounting to the capitalised value of half the fair rent would be a secure one, and that none of the complicated guarantees which have been invented for larger advances would have to be called on. In the second place, it would take a smaller amount of money out of the sum provided for the purposes of the Act, and would lead to the adoption of the provisions of the Act in numerous cases where landlords at present would be naturally unwilling to take advantage of them, owing to the difficulty and delay caused by the necessity for proving the title of the vendor and of going into detail with regard to family settlements and the like. These perpetuity rents would be much easier and much more rapidly collected than under the sale of holdings. The tenants would go on paying a reduced rent, but would not he precluded from repeating the operation and purchasing the second half of his rent. I move the clause as it stands on the Paper.
    New Clause—
    (Sale where tenant pays fine and fee farm rent.)
    "(1.) Where a sale of a holding is about to be made by a landlord to a tenant in consideration of the tenant paying a fine and engaging to pay to the landlord a fee farm rent, the

    1439
    Land Commission may make an advance to the tenant to the amount of such fine, provided that the fee farm rent shall not exceed fifty per cent. of the rent which, in the opinion of the Land Commission, would be a fair rent for the holding.
    (2.) The provisions under this section for securing advances for the purchase of holdings and for the repayment of same, and for distribution of purchase-money, shall be, mutatis mutandis, the same as those in reference to cases of purchase and sale by tenants of their holdings under this Act,"—(Colonel Waring,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
    MR. SEXTON: This is a Bill to provide funds for the purchase of land in Ireland, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman by this Amendment proposes to devote these funds, or part of them, not to the purchase of land, but to fining down the rents of tenants. The tenants, when this transaction has taken place, will still be tenants, and their landlords will remain landlords. I submit that a transaction leaving such a sequel behind it could not be described as a transaction of sale and purchase, and would not come within the scope of this Act.
    MR. SPEAKER: There is great force in what the hon. Member says. It would not be strictly within the purport or scope of an Act for securing the purchase of holdings.
    COLONEL WARING: It is a proposal in the interest of the tenant.
    MR. SEXTON: The landlord could evict him.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. PENROSE FITZGERALD: I beg to move a new clause dealing with arrears. My idea is to arrive at some arrangement which may facilitate landlords more or less in arrear—and I think that in Ireland it will be more—with regard to the sale of their property. I think that it will be generally agreed that unless some arrangement is come to by which the arrears at present due, or some portion, are made the absolute property of the present or sitting owner of the land, a grave obstacle will be put in the way of many landlords disposing of their property.
    New Clause—
    (Arrears.)
    "(1.) Where the amount of the advance applied for in pursuance of any agreement for sale is sanctioned by the Land Commission, and there are nevertheless arrears of rent due by the tenant to the landlord, the Land Commission may add to the amount of such advance an amount agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant in satisfaction of such arrears, not however exceeding—

    (a.) The amount of two years' rent; or

    (b.) Half the amount of the arrears due.

    (2.) Before making such advance the Land Commission shall be satisfied that—

    (a.) The arrears are bonâ fide due to the said landlord; and

    (b.) That arrears to the amount advanced in respect thereof have accrued within ten years prior to the application.

    (3.) When any such advance in respect of arrears has been sanctioned the amount thereof shall be paid to the landlord or other person entitled thereto,"—(Mr. Penrose Fitz-Gerald, )
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not deny that a difficulty exists, but I do not think this clause would afford a practical solution of it. Its character may be stated thus: If the land be settled land, the price of it is not at the disposal of the owner for the time being, but is to be put in trust for the benefit of the remainder man. My hon. Friend will observe that if his Amendment were carried there would be an opening for great fraud on the part of the owner, because, he being aware that the holding is security for, say £1,000, might enter into a colourable transaction with the tenant under which £500 out of the £1,000 would be regarded as arrears, and the remaining £500 as the price of the holding. The result would be that the owner would get a good deal more than his rights, and the State would be proportionately injured. The House will see that this clause does not give the landlord a right to more than the holding is security for. We could not admit that for a moment. My hon. Friend desires to draw a line between the arrears and the price of the holding. I think that that would be a difficult thing to do. It would obviously require to be guarded by every sort of limitation, in order to prevent the owner in posses-

    1441
    sion defrauding either intentionally or unintentionally the remainderman. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that he should not press the Amendment, seeing that what he has pointed out has not militated in the past against success of land purchase, while its adoption would, I am inclined to think, constitute a rather dangerous innovation in the Bill now before the House.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to move the clause which stands in my name, its object being to provide that where negotiations between landlord and tenant are in danger of breaking down, the question of price may be referred to the Land Commission. I have heard some objection to this clause on the ground that it is the thin end of the wedge of compulsion. But I wish to point out that it can only be put into force with the consent of both parties. I cannot possibly be charged with being in favour of compulsory sale or compulsory purchase, and I wish it to be understood that there is no compulsion in the clause which I am now proposing. I think the clause of enormous importance to farmers in the Province of Ulster. I do not know that it is of so much importance to farmers in other parts of Ireland, but I am assured that there will be an anxiety to buy in Ulster, and very little anxiety to sell. That will be the real difficulty with which tenants will be confronted in the Province of Ulster. I do not blame the landlord for his unwillingness to sell, for he gets his rent with tolerable regularity and is in a pretty comfortable position, and has not the inducement to sell which landlords in other parts of Ireland may have. With him it will be very much a question of price: the landlord will try to get as much as he can, and the tenant will endeavour to cut him down, and I fear this danger—that in the course of the negotiations there will be a tendency to break them off at a critical point, say when there is only a difference as to a year's purchase. Now, I should like to have in the Bill a provision which will enable both parties to refer the question to the Land Commission for arbitration. This is not a new proposal. It was the very first clause of the Bill
    1442
    of last year, and I must say I think that so far as the Bill of this year differs from that of last year, it is not so good. I hope the Chief Secretary will give us some explanation why he has omitted this particular provision from the Bill.
    New Clause—
    (Price to be paid for holding may be fixed by the Land Commission.)
    "When the landlord and the tenant of a holding in Ireland make an agreement for the sale of the holding to the tenant, they may in such agreement provide that the price of the interest which the tenant agrees to buy in the holding shall be fixed by the Land Commission, and the Land Commission may thereupon fix such price and may make such advance to the amount so fixed, or in or as a contribution to the purchase-money to be paid for such holding,"—(Mr. T. W. Russell,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
    MR. SEXTON: The circumstance that this clause was in last year's Bill, and is not in this, would rather appear to indicate that the right hon. Gentleman is opposed to it, and I may point out that in every case in which we have sought to reinstate in this Bill clauses omitted from it, but contained in the measure of last year, the right hon. Gentleman has told us that he has altered his mind. I presume he will now give us some reason for the exclusion of this particular clause. I think the great defect of the clause is that there is no compulsion in it, for I hold that, so far as the Province of Ulster is concerned, it will be of no effect unless it is made compulsory. The hon. Gentleman advanced another argument which seemed to me strangely remote. He said that the case of Ulster was very different from that of other parts of Ireland, and that the landlords instead of being eager to sell would be unwilling to do so. How does the hon. Member make it out that in the case in which landlords are unwilling to sell the position of the tenants will be made easier by the insertion of this clause?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I also said it would be largely a question of price.
    MR. SEXTON: If the landlord is in such a position of independence that he does not care to sell, the question would

    1443
    scarcely be one of price—it would rather be one of sentiment. I take it that an unwilling landlord would never consent to refer the matter to the Land Commission. But I think that the main question is after all, "Who will be the Commissioners to fix the price?" I believe the occasions on which they will be called upon to act will be very rare, for if landlord and tenant cannot, after negotiation and discussion, agree upon a price, they are scarcely likely to be in a frame of mind to refer the matter to arbitration. The Land Commission, too, has never had this power before, and we are, therefore, entering on an experiment. Now, I ask again who is to fix the price? I admit that my attitude towards this Amendment will be affected, and perhaps governed, by the consideration whether or not the prices are to be fixed by the Commissioners who have had the administration of the Ashbourne Acts. It cannot be denied that by their conduct they have earned the confidence of the Irish people—they have secured a position not often attained by public officials in Ireland. But if you are going to entrust the duty to the three Land Commissioners under this Bill I say you will be confiding to them an extremely important function without evidence of their fitness to discharge it. If the clause be adopted I shall at the proper time move that the duty of fixing the price be handed over to the Commissioners who have the administration of the Ashbourne Acts.
    MR. LEA: I do not quite understand the arguments of my hon. Friend. This is a strictly voluntary clause, for neither landlord nor tenant need resort to arbitration unless he chooses to do so. I cannot see the least objection to its being included in the Bill. It is quite harmless, and if inserted in the Bill, will probably only come into force on one or two occasions.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As the original author of this clause, I must confess to a lingering affection for it. A similar clause was in the forefront of the Bill of last year. It was introduced because I thought that the landlords of the South West of Ireland might find themselves not only unduly pressed—pressed
    1444
    by not particularly legal methods—to sell, but to sell for a price very much less than the true value of the land. I inserted it because I wished the landlords, in a contingency of that sort, to be able to say, "I am prepared to sell, but not at the price you choose to fix; we will, instead, appeal to a tribunal whose impartiality is beyond question." The clause, however, did not find much favour in any part of the House, and so I determined not to include it in this year's Bill. I think it would not be well now to alter the framework of the Bill, and probably it will be quite sufficient to leave the landlord and the tenant the choice which they now possess of obtaining arbitration in the Land Commission. There is nothing whatever in the Bill to exclude arbitration if the tenant and the landlord wish to resort to it. The hon. Member for West Belfast has asked for a declaration as to the constitution of the Commission. I believe that the question will be raised on Clause 14, and when that is reached I shall deem it my duty to state the views of the Government on the point. I cannot do so now.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: I do not think that this clause would have the salutary operation in the Province of Ulster, which the hon. Member for South Tyrone seems to anticipate. Last week an important Conservative Association there passed a resolution of no confidence in the Land Commission, and farmers who do that can hardly be expected to agree to submit questions of importance to that body. Again, I do not think the farmers would be willing to refer these questions to the Commission, because the function of that Body is to ascertain whether the price agreed upon between landlord and tenant is a fair price from the point of view of security to the State. But now you propose to absolutely change their function and let them fix the price themselves. That will be throwing an enormous burden upon them, and a burden sufficient to prevent them discharging their duties efficiently. While I desire to promote agreements between landlord and tenant I do not think this proposal would have that effect.
    MR. KNOX: I am aware there is considerable feeling in favour of this proposal in certain parts of Ireland,

    1445
    and I should feel disposed to support it were it not for the fact that we can get no explanation as to what Body will be entrusted with the duty of fixing the price. Who are to form the Land Commission? Are Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Wrench to be allowed to meddle in these land purchase transactions? I should not have any objection to Mr. Wrench dealing with matters of account, but on points requiring discretion as between landlord and tenant I do not think anyone representing the tenants could assent to his having a finger in the pie. The merits of this Amendment depend entirely on the point, Who will form the Land Commission? I shall oppose the clause, because I believe it will be absolutely nugatory if the Land Commission is composed of the two gentlemen I have named. If, however, the duty is to be entrusted to Messrs. Macarthy and Lynch I shall be happy to vote for the Amendment.
    MR. M. HEALY: It is impossible for anybody to come to a decision on the questions involved in this clause without knowing who is to have the administration of this Act. Is it to be loft in the hands of the gentlemen of whose work we have had experience and in whom the country has confidence? If so I should be disposed to vote for this clause. But I would not vote for it on any of the grounds suggested by the Chief Secretary, because I believe it will afford a means of escape to landlords who are being driven to sell by their tenants. The right hon. Gentleman does not think we should take into consideration the question who will administer this clause. He thinks it is not right we should let our minds be influenced by questions of personal conduct such as are involved by references to Messrs. Macarthy and Lynch. We have confidence in those gentlemen, but we have none in Messrs. Fitzgerald and Wrench, and our confidence in the former has been justified by long experience of them. We are asked for no cause assigned to abandon the administration of Mr. Macarthy and Mr. Lynch. We are asked to revolutionise the Land Commission and change its powers and its purposes. I am in favour of the clause if it is administered by gentlemen in whom I have confidence, but I would rather see
    1446
    the Bill defeated and the whole scheme of land purchase thrown out than have the administration of the measure placed in the hands of gentlemen I know nothing of. Therefore, while I think there is a good deal of merit in the proposal which this clause makes, I shall in the present stage of things be compelled to vote against the clause.
    MR. PIERCE MAHONY: I find myself in complete accord with my hon. Friends the Members for West Belfast and Cavan (Mr. Sexton and Mr. Knox). The whole value of the clause who are to administer the clause. At the present moment we have in Ireland a Land Purchase Department which has administered Land Purchase Acts for six years, and has gained a much larger amount of public confidence than I venture to say has been gained for many a long day by any Public Department in the country. If it is left to them to fix the purchase price of holdings I think this clause would be valuable. I do not quite agree with the hon. Member for West Belfast that where landlord and tenant can come to an agreement between themselves they will not be likely to leave the matter to a third party. I think that is exactly a case where a third party is wanted. The Chief Secretary said there was nothing to prevent landlord and tenant submitting a case of that kind to arbitration; but there is a great deal of difficulty in arranging arbitration between landlord and tenant, and what we want is to have a Court, constituted by Act of Parliament, to whom the landlord and tenant may refer the matter of price. I cannot go the length of voting against this clause, even if the names of the gentlemen who are to administer it are not made known, but the clause will become practically valueless unless it is administered by men such as the Land Commissioners in whom the tenant farmers have confidence.
    MR. JORDAN: I am strongly in favour of the principle of the clause on the ground that it will lead to many arrangements in the North of Ireland that might not otherwise be made. Landlords and tenants who have proceeded a certain distance in the matter of negotiation may wish the intervention of a third party as arbitrators. I think the Land Commis-

    1447
    sion would be a very suitable third party to arbitrate between landlord and tenant. From what I know of Mr. Wrench in the matter of the management of estates before he went to the Land Commission, I think it would be a calamity if that gentleman were called upon to arbitrate where tenants are interested. At present tenants in the North of Ireland and in other districts are afraid to refer matters to Mr. Wrench, lest the judicial rents would be increased, and much more where price of purchase would be fixed would they fear him.
    MR. P. J. POWER: Occasionally we have had to find fault with the administration of the Ashbourne Act, but, I think it can be said that, on the whole, the two gentlemen who now administer that Act have done their work well and efficiently. If there is to be arbitration we should certainly prefer to see those gentlemen conducting it.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Perhaps I may be allowed to withdraw the clause. I was quite prepared for opposition from the Representatives of the Irish landlords, but I was not prepared for opposition on this side.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. LEA: I beg to move the new clause "Insurance Fund," which stands in my name. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway and I and my Colleague have raised objection to the Insurance and Guarantee Deposit Funds simply on the ground that it will restrict purchase under the Bill. I have always gone on the principle that we should make the Bill work as smoothly as possible and remove all restrictions we can in order to make the Bill valuable to everybody. There can be no doubt that the Insurance Fund will tend to restrict sales; that is an indisputable proposition. Again, there is no doubt that the guarantee deposit will also act as a restriction in many cases. I have been informed that there are three estates on which it will render the Act useless. Of course the Treasury will argue that the Insurance Fund and the guarantee deposit cannot be removed with safety. That may be
    1448
    so in some cases, but in a very considerable portion of Ireland there are many large estates not only in Ulster, but elsewhere in Ireland on which the tenant right is ample security for any advance under a Land Purchase Bill. I maintain that when tenant right represents a large and saleable sum it is far better security than the paltry 5 per cent. of insurance money, or even the larger amount of guarantee deposit. Such restrictions are certainly useless, and I, therefore, propose that when tenant right does exist in a saleable manner the Land Commission may, if they think fit, set aside the Insurance Fund and also the guarantee deposit and allow the estates to be sold under the Act.
    Another Clause—
    (Insurance Fund.)
    "When the Land Commission are satisfied that the prevailing average price paid on an estate for the purchase of the tenant's interest is £10 per acre or upwards, and they are otherwise satisfied with the security of the advance, they may dispense with the Insurance Fund instalments named in Section 5, Sub-section (1), of this Act,"—(Mr. Lea,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
    MR. KNOX: I think the Insurance Fund is bad in every way, bad for the North of Ireland, the South of Ireland, and the West of Ireland; and that wherever we can get rid of it we ought to do so. I think there is a great deal in favour of what the hon. Member has said, namely, that where the tenant-right is so valuable that it fetches on the average more than £10 an acre, we do not want any security over and beyond the tenant's interest in the holding. That is quite sufficient to guarantee the Government. I think the proposal will have a more far-reaching effect than the hon. Member imagines. My belief is that it will affect a great part of the North and South of Ireland. I, therefore, venture to strongly support the clause, and to hope that the Government may see their way to accept it. Of course, the clause in no way removes my strong objection to Clause 5. That clause, though it is objectionable from the point of view of the tenants whose

    1449
    case is met by the present clause, is much more objectionable to the small tenants in the West of Ireland. Therefore, though I support the Amendment, I do so because I think the tenants' Insurance Fund is a bad thing in every case, and not because I think it a worse thing in this case than in others.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, I shall not be expected to express my concurrence with the view of the hon. Gentleman that the tenants' Insurance Fund is a bad thing. At the same time, I have great sympathy with the view which has been expressed by the hon. Member who has moved the Amendment with respect to the holdings in Ulster, where it may be said that the tenant's interest is nearly as great as that of the landlord's, and represents an amount substantially in excess of any sum likely to be advanced by the State for the purchase of the holding. But the Amendment is one which the Government can hardly accept. I might make several objections to the suggestion, but one is fatal. If it happened that on a holding there was very fine arable land and some amount of comparatively inferior and rough pasture, it might be that, although the tenant's interest was a very large proportion of the saleable value of the holding, it might not amount to £10 an acre, and the tenant would be excluded from the benefit of the clause, simply because the holding in part consisted of land which was of inferior quality, and which, therefore, brought down the general average of the tenant - right to some point below the £10 fixed by the clause. It has, however, occurred to me that my hon. Friend's intention may be carried out, not inconsistently with the general principles of the Bill, if words are introduced to this effect—
    "When the Land Commission are satisfied that the value of a holding for the purchase of which an agreement has been entered into under the Act exceeds the amount of the advance by at least one-half, they may, on the application of the landlord and tenant, dispense with the guarantee deposit and the tenant's Insurance Fund in respect of such holdings, and in such case the provisions of the Land Purchase Act and this Act with reference to the Guarantee Fund and the tenants' Insurance Fund shall not apply."
    This would relieve the exceptional hold-
    1450
    ings in Ireland from the particular limitations of purchase that have been pointed out, and, so far, I should be prepared to dispense with the tenants' Insurance Fund.
    MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman has adopted an unusual and inconvenient course by superimposing another and difficult question on that suggested by the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to deprive Members of the opportunity of declaring their opinion on the two Amendments, because Members who take one view of the first Amendment may take an exactly contrary view of the second. As regards the insurance money, I say at once that where a tenancy is worth £10 an acre, or the value of the holding is half as much again as that of the interest of the landlord, one of the two reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman for the establishment of the tenants' Insurance Fund does not apply. Under such circumstances there is no occasion to make provision for a bad year, because a tenant who is so well endowed is placed in no danger by a bad year. The second reason given by the right hon. Gentleman for the establishment of the fund was that the benefit which would be derived by purchasers should not be so great as to excite envy among the tenants who were shut out. But when the right hon. Gentleman limits his fund to £30,000,000, what can it matter to him how many tenants wish to buy? And how does he reconcile with that argument his acceptance of the Amendment to-night? I do not dwell on the point, because I think the tenants' Insurance Fund is a bad thing altogether. I shall vote on every occasion in favour of limiting the Insurance Fund, and therefore I shall support the Amendment.
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: It seems to me that hon. Members, in viewing the proposals now Submitted, may take a diametrically opposite view as to the wisdom of the one and the unwisdom of the other. For several days the Committee was employed in debating the question of the advisability of retaining an Insurance Fund by keeping up the tenant's payments for the first five years. Almost

    1451
    an equal amount of time was consumed at the previous stage of the discussion by Gentlemen on this side of the House endeavouring to maintain the right of the public to have the full benefit of the deposit of the landlords. There was, it seems to me, no mistake made so great in their conduct of this Bill as when the Government refused to listen to the almost unanimous prayer of this side of the House that the whole of the landlords' deposit should be exhausted before we come upon the rents. It is a very serious matter indeed. Already the moment a tenant makes default, then from the first the local rates are liable; but how much more serious will it be if, on a certain number of estates, the landlords' deposit is exempted from any liability whatever. I should be very ready to vote for the first section of the clause of my hon. Friend, for I consider the Insurance Fund will, in its operation, be exceedingly disastrous. I believe it will raise the selling price of estates in Ireland, and prevent the sale of exactly those farms we most desire to see sold under this Act. For this reason, I should vote for the first of these clauses, but when I come to the second I must say that I cannot imagine anything to which we on this side of the House are bound to give a more determined opposition. Personally, I can see no relation between the amount of tenant right paid on an estate and the question whether or not the landlord's interest ought to be liable. Most just, in my opinion, is this liability of the landlord. A landlord and tenant make an agreement to sell and to buy, and they are exactly in the position of people who draw and accept a Bill. The Bill is discounted by the British Government, in the position of the backer. In a case of this kind both drawer and acceptor are liable. The tenant is liable to the full extent of his interest; the landlord is liable to the extent of one-fifth, and by the second proposal of my hon. Friend, adopted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, it is proposed to dispense the landlord from even this liability, and it is quite impossible that we on this side of the House can accept such a proposal as that. It was bad enough to whittle down the landlord's liability as it has been whittled down,
    1452
    making him liable only pari passu with the ratepayer, but further than that we will not go.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Two questions are involved here: first of all, whether, if the Amendment of my hon. Friend is accepted, the security left will be sufficient for the State, and nobody who knows anything about Ulster tenant right in counties such as Down and Antrim, where the tenant right sometimes sells at £20 an acre, can doubt that the security to the State will be ample though the Amendment of my hon. Friend were accepted to the full. The next question is, will the Amendment, if carried, facilitate land purchase? I say it will. I hold that we ought not to check land purchase simply because while conferring a boon upon the tenant we also confer another boon upon the landlord—simply because if you liberate the tenant from his Insurance Fund you are called upon to liberate the landlord's guarantee deposit. There is an affirmative reply to both questions, the State will be amply secured, and, I maintain, that the Amendment, if carried, will materially facilitate land purchase in a great part of Ireland.
    MR. LEA: On a point of order, Sir, may I ask whether, I having moved a certain clause, and the right hon. Gentleman having suggested an alternative clause, the latter can be accepted in place of mine?
    MR. SPEAKER: Such a complete transformation of the clause could not be moved without notice.
    MR. M. HEALY: The hon. Member for South Tyrone says if the Amendment would facilitate land purchase we ought not to refuse it, because it benefits the landlord; but suppose it benefits the landlord at the expense of the rates?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On the point of order, Sir, I understand you have ruled that my Amendment cannot be moved, and I would ask you, therefore, would it not be out of order to discuss it at the present time?
    MR. SPEAKER: The Amendment amounts to a new clause, and as such cannot be moved without notice. Of course the discussion of an Amendment not before the House would not be in-order.
    MR. M. HEALY: As I understand your ruling, Sir, at present the first part of the clause is under discussion?
    MR. SPEAKER: That is the only question before the House at the moment.
    MR. M. HEALY: Then what does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do upon the clause? Does he mean to say "Aye" or "No" to it?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: "No."
    MR. M. HEALY: It comes to this then, that he objects to the clause because it does not carry benefit to the landlord—
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I gave reasons why the clause should not be accepted quite apart from that.
    MR. M. HEALY: Well, as I had not the good fortune to hear those reasons I will not attempt to discuss them. I shall certainly vote for the first clause no matter what happens to the second, and though I should have to vote against the second clause I shall vote for this clause, not that I think it is of very great advantage, but because it does something to do away with the evil effects of probably one of the worst clauses in the Bill, that in reference to the tenants' insurance. I am satisfied that clause will go far to render the Bill abortive. I am in favour of a policy of land purchase, and shall vote for any Amendment designed to remove to a slight extent the evils of that clause. This Amendment goes to a slight extent in that direction, it is peculiarly an Ulster matter, and I shall support the hon. Member. I do not think it would make much difference in the South of Ireland. The method of calculating tenant right by the acre prevails to a very small extent in Munster, and I imagine the clause would practically be inoperative there. In Ulster it will, no doubt, have some effect, and will do something to modify the evil effects of the tenants' purchase insurance required by the Bill. When a man's interest is of such a character as to bring sums as high as £10 an acre, that does supply sufficient reason for dispensing with the insurance security.
    MR. PIERCE MAHONY: In so far as the clause attacks the principle of the
    1454
    Insurance Fund I give it my support. I fully agree that tenant right in Ulster is a property far in excess of the amount of the Insurance Fund, and the latter might well be dispensed with. As regards the guarantee deposit, that ought to be put on an equality with the ratepayers' liability. The things are so mixed that it is impossible to discuss them separately. However, I shall vote for the first clause, but against the second; but as the right hon. Gentleman has announced his intention of opposing the first clause, and I suppose he will do so successfully, I presume the hon. Member will not find it necessary to move the second.
    (11.15.) The House divided:—Ayes 85; Noes 145.—(Div. List, No. 256.)
    MR. LEA: I do not propose to move the second part of the clause, but in the modified form proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, I should be prepared to accept it. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will undertake that it shall be moved in another place. It will secure a portion of what I seek to attain. Now, I have to propose the clause relating to advances to purchasing tenants under the Church Act of 1870 and the Bright Clauses of the Land Act.
    MR. SEXTON: May I ask what has become of the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Cambridge?
    MR. SPEAKER: It was not moved.
    MR. LEA: It will be in the recollection of the House that in 1887 certain improvements were made in the status of the tenants who purchased under the Church Act of 1869 and the Bright Clauses of the Act of 1870; but one fault has always been found with the action of the Treasury, who limited the advantages thus given to a selected number of the more necessitous tenants. The great fault was that the benefit was not given to all tenants, and now I propose that it shall be made compulsory to apply the advantage of that Act in all cases where the tenants choose to avail themselves of it. The advantages are not very great, the extension of the instalments over 49 years and a reduction of the rate of in-

    1455
    terest. The Treasury have, I think, agreed to the latter part, but they have not extended the period to 49 years. That is the first portion of the clause I propose to introduce, the other is a rather different matter. I only propose to move at the present time a new clause providing that any tenant of a holding purchased under the Irish Church Act or the Land Act of 1870 may apply for and receive from the Land Commissioners an advance to pay off the sum still remaining due on the amount agreed to be paid for the purchase of the holding. It is not a very large amount involved, but it affects tenants who are deserving the highest possible praise for the efforts they have made to keep up their instalments. Many of the purchasers under the Church Act bought at 28 or 29 years' purchase, and under the Bright Clauses of the Land Act at 26 or 27 years, and these tenants have kept up their instalments with wonderful regularity during very trying times. I think they are entitled to every consideration and advantage it is possible to give them under this Act.
    New Clause—
    (Advances to tenants.)
    Whereas under "The Irish Church Act, 1869," "The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870," and "The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1872," advances to tenants were authorised for such proportions of the money required for the purchase of their holdings, and upon such conditions and terms as therein specified, and whereas, notwithstanding that such terms and conditions were altered and modified by "The Irish Land Act, 1887," in certain cases, and to the extent therein mentioned, there still remains an inequality which presses severely and injuriously on the purchasers under those earlier Acts as compared with the advantages provided under "The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885," and "The Irish Land Act, 1887," be it therefore enacted as follows:—
    On the application of the tenant of any holding purchased under "The Irish Church Act, 1869," "The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870," or "The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1872," and whether the annuities or instalments payable out of such holding have been altered under the provisions of "The Irish Land Act, 1887," or otherwise; and if, upon due investigation, they find that any portion of the purchase money other than the advance made by the State was borrowed by the tenant and still remains due, the Irish Land Commissioners shall make such further advance as may be required to pay off such debt, and shall pay it off Provided that, upon due inquiry, the Land Commission is satisfied that such holding
    1456
    is sufficient security for such advance when added to the portion still unpaid of the original State loan or advance.
    The Land Commission shall ascertain the present capital value of the annuities or instalments still remaining unpaid of the original advance, and shall add such capital sum to the amount advanced under this section, and repayment of the total sum so found shall be provided for by an annuity for 49 years from the first day of May or the first day of November next preceding the date of the application under this section of such amount as shall be found by the Land Commissioners to be required to repay it by half-yearly instalments, calculating interest at three and one-eighth per cent,"—(Mr. Lea,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
    MR. GOSCHEN: I think the suggestion of the hon. Member goes beyond the advantage given in the Act of 1887, because, as I understand, he suggests two points: the extension of time which comes in under the 2nd clause, and also the advance of the balance of the purchase money owing.
    MR. LEA: I was about to move both clauses, but I am only at the moment moving the first.
    MR. GOSCHEN: From the statement it appeared that the hon. Member simply meant to extend the discretion given in the Act of 1887, but I did not gather from the hon. Member that his proposal was to advance the balance of the purchase money owing. My objection is that to accept the proposal would make an inroad into the £30,000,000 which has been allocated for other purposes, and would, therefore, in some degree defeat the object of the Bill— the extension of the system of land purchase—to the extent of the amount required to meet these balances. It would restrict the extension, and so we cannot accept the clause.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: If my hon. Friend consents not to press this Amendment relating to advances to tenants under the Irish Church Act of 1869, and the Landlord and Tenant Acts of 1870 and 1872, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer undertake to give favourable consideration to the next Amendment, which will give purchasers under the above-mentioned Act an extension of time for the repayment

    1457
    of the money advanced to them? I think it is proven that the Act of 1887 operated with great inequality as between the wealthier and the poorer classes of tenants. I would consequently ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would not consider the question of giving to all these purchasers alike an extension of time.
    MR. GOSCHEN: In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that the clause now under discussion cannot be accepted by the Government, because it will involve the making of too great an inroad upon the money to be devoted to the purposes of the Bill. It would be out of order if I were to say what I shall be called upon to state in regard to the next clause; but when that clause is reached, I will explain the views of the Government with regard to it.
    MR. SEXTONthought that the sum involved, if the Amendment were agreed to, would be comparatively inconsiderable. The position of the tenants who had bought under the earlier Acts relating to land purchase ought, so far as possible, to be assimilated to the position of the tenants who would purchase under the present measure. It would be a graceful and wise concession on the part of the Government to accept the Amendment.
    MR. M. HEALY: I think this is a clause in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might well re-consider the position he has taken. I think he must see that the tenants generally are entitled to some such measure of relief as is here imposed. They are all situate in the Province of Ulster, and I cannot believe that other tenants in other parts of Ireland grudge them the sum which this proposal would enable them to acquire in order to carry the Amendment into effect. Everybody knows that these glebe tenants purchased at an enormously high rate, paying a large excess on the average prices since established as the value of the land in Ireland. The Land Act of 1869 was the first step towards a peasant proprietary in Ireland, and men who purchased under it, and, were the pioneers of land purchase in that country, have ever since been paying the penalty of having taken advantage of that Statute. They have had to pay high prices and to borrow at
    1458
    a large amount of interest, and, therefore, have been situate in a singularly unfavourable manner as compared with the tenants who have purchased holdings under more recent enactments. It would be a mere act of Parliamentary pedantry on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to stick to the miserable point which has been raised as to the £30,000,000 limit as against the interests of the large number of tenants who would be benefited by the carrying of this Amendment.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: I trust the right hon. Gentleman will give serious attention to this point, because I think there is no class of tenants in Ireland who are more deserving than the glebe purchasers, because they had, in the first instance, to purchase at very high rates, and to borrow what money they required at a high rate of interest. The result is, that they have been ground down by the outstanding debt. No doubt, in 1887, their position was to some extent recognised, because power was then given to extend the period of repayment for nine years. But, inasmuch as they had to borrow money, apart from what they obtained from the State, and to pay this heavy interest, the outstanding balance has continued to press upon them down to the present time. Consequently, they are still far from being in the same position as the purchasers under the Ashbourne Act. This Amendment, if accepted, would have the effect of bringing the glebe purchasers into the same position as those under the Ashbourne Act by enabling them to compound the outstanding debt. I would also point out, as a matter worthy of the consideration of the Government, that these men have been paying their instalments for something like 20 years; and having to that extent redeemed the land in their occupation, their holdings offer a better security than those purchased at the present time. They have actually acquired half the fee-simple of their holdings, and having been thrifty, industrious, and punctual in their payments, especially since 1887, they deserve consideration from the Government.
    Mr. DICKSON: I think I know more of the

    1459
    circumstances under which glebe tenants purchased than most of the hon. Members behind me. I know that they purchased at something like 30 per cent. beyond the present average value, and at from 23 to 28 years' purchase, in addition to which many of them have been paying to outside money lenders 10 per cent. for money borrowed. I am sure there is not a more deserving class of tenants than these men, and I would respectfully urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to place them in a position of perfect equality with the other tenants. I am certain that probably not more than £50,000, but certainly less than £100,000, would meet the entire case.
    MR. GOSCHEN: As this clause is drawn, the Land Commissioners are to make the advances, but I would point out that the Land Commissioners have no funds at their disposal for such a purpose. However, I will look into the matter, ascertain the amount involved, and see whether the case of those tenants can be met. I am not aware whether the case could be dealt with under the Ashbourne Acts or not, but as the clause stands I am unable to accept it.
    MR. M. HEALY: I would suggest the clause should be read a second time, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer then bring up an Amendment to it.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I could not agree to that course.
    MR. LEA: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer bring up a new clause tomorrow to give effect to the object in view?
    MR. SINCLAIR: The glebe tenants have bought on very onerous conditions; they have, however, paid up well, and no suggestion has been made that they should be relieved of any part of the principal. Their case certainly deserves consideration. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer can bring up a new clause applying a portion of the money available under the Ashbourne Acts to the present case it would meet the difficulty. If it cannot be done in this House, it might be done in another place.
    MR. COURTNEY: If we had information with reference to the maximum amount which has been borrowed by those purchasers, we would be better able
    1460
    to deal with the matter. I do not understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is opposed to the principle of the proposal, but there is a practical difficulty in adopting either of the two suggestions that have been made for the purpose of overcoming the difficulty. I therefore suggest the adjournment of the Debate on the clause, so as to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity of bringing up to-morrow an Amendment which will carry out the principle hon. Members have in view.
    Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND CHARGES BILL.—(No. 252.)
  Considered in Committee; Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday.

  LAND DEPARTMENT (IRELAND) BILL (No. 112.)
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. SEXTON: I would suggest that the Bill be withdrawn at once, as it is impossible to pass it this Session.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I entirely agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for West Belfast.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): If it will afford general satisfaction to hon. Members opposite, I have no objection to move that the Order for the Second Reading be discharged.
  Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

  LAND DEPARTMENT (IRELAND) [SALARIES, &c.]
  Order for Committee thereupon read and discharged.
  SUPPLY [29th MAY] REPORT.
  Resolutions [see pages 1328, 1346, 1347 and 1348] reported, and agreed to.

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT (1879) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 227.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.
  House adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.

Preamble
After the transaction of Private Business,
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.